Syncretistic Catholicism

another minority report

Syncretistic Catholicism where any Anglican, Episcopal, Roman & Orthodox

consensus informs core beliefs & divergences are received as valid theological
opinions

Entropy & Eschatology

We shouldn’t extrapolate models of closed linear systems near equilibrium,

e.g. statistical mechanics, to the whole of physical reality or its metaphysical
possibilities & potentialities. Those models neither stipulate to nor postulate
natural laws. They simply refer to assemblies of microscopic entities &/or
microstates and describe their macroscopic behaviors & macrostates,
probabilistically.

Those epistemic-ontic physical ensembles tell us very little about such

fundamental questions such as regarding emergence (epistemological &/or
ontological?), ontic domains (singular or plural? intra- & inter- ?), primitives
(e.g. space, time, mass, energy & ¿consciousness?), axioms (e.g. nomicities,
regularities & laws) & conditions (e g. initial, boundary & limit or mereological
causation (top – down).

For example, even if we stipulated to space, time, mass & energy as primitives
& consciousness as ontologically emergent, that wouldn’t exhaust the
manifold & multiform ways those entities, properties, processes & regularities
might comport & consort as principal kinds, interrelations, and modes of
operation.

We’re nowhere near articulating a Theory of Everything.

As I’ve written, previously, our minimalist transcendent methodology would

interrogate physical reality, for example, asking such questions as whether it’s
necessarily

volumetrically in/finite,

geometrically un/bounded or un/closed,

topologically un/re/curved,

temporalized spatially or spatialized temporally,

essentially or emergently spatio-temporal,

a/symmetric,

essentially non/inflationary,

quasi/exponentially expansionary

dimensionally 2/3/4/more-D,

homo/hetero/genous,

an/isotropic,

uni/multi/versial,
with dimension/less physical constancy,

with non/universal constancy,

nomologically im/mutable

and on and on and on.

Answers to certain of these questions will necessarily implicate answers to

certain others.

One way of contextualizing all of the above is by drawing a distinction

between practical & absolute constraints and then speculating beyond the
former. Fascinating ideas, then, would emerge, like Maxwell’s Demon, the
Poincaré recurrence theorem or even quantum origins of true ontic
emergence.

Robert John Russel’s eschatological understanding implies that the new

creation is neither a replacement of the present creation, nor the mere working
out of the natural processes of the world, but entails the radical transformation
of the world by God’s new act.
~ Daniël P Veldsman
On emergence and eschatology: something has to give …

God utilises the energy that makes up the substance of the universe, the
regularities according to which it functions and the undetermined potentials
that make it flexible enough to allow intentionality and agency to manifest
themselves. God does not bypass cosmic reality!
~ Klaus Nürnberger
Of course, the 2nd Law applies to closed systems left to themselves. We can’t
a priori rule out that they are merely apparently closed, so open to novel, i.e.
divine, energy sources, which could lower local entropy without borrowing
energy from elsewhere in the “closed” system.

John Sobert Sylvest May 24, 2023 Uncategorized

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

Comment *

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I
comment.

Post Comment

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Syncretistic Catholicism Blog at WordPress.com.