[Dec.17/25]
Formal cause vs. atheistic evolution. Schrödinger references are a recurring theme for us hence the title.
This very interesting article on Formal Cause formalized an idea which had lately been developing. We had to apply this comment afterwards as a follow-up:
Very
interesting; I've never seen it put quite that way. Reminds me of
Aquinas. The "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment, which I've found
very useful, also applies to the theory of evolution: Their theory
posits the -effect- of a Creator (order in the universe according to a
design) without an actual Creator; so in effect, for them, God exists
and doesn't exist at the same time, and only insofar as is necessary for
the universe to exist without Him. I have to write this down.
...
* Explanation on the use of the "Schrödinger's cat" metaphor: It is defined thus: "In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat in a closed box may be considered to be simultaneously both alive and dead while it is unobserved, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This experiment, viewed this way, is described as a paradox". We use this as a variant of what is known as "cognitive dissonance" in which two contradictory ideas are held, if not both as equally true, yet at the same time. In this variant, we use it to represent ideas which are selectively held as true at the same time, while excluding 'undesired' elements, in an manner inconsistent with the whole truth but consistent with modernist and 'woke' (as it is called) ideology. We find this is applicable to a great many things.
Schrödinger Strikes Again Again: Jan.15/26
A comment on this Novus Ordo Watch article: Leo XIV’s Strange New Pastoral Staff: Bent Cross with Ascending Christ ‘No Longer Bound By the Nails of the Passion’!
~ Weighing in on this...I got nothing. I like the term "Ascendifix" for this novelty though.
On second thought, this might be related to what I might call "Schrödinger's Original Sin". It is there and not there at the same time, as we see with this novelty, which can be interpreted as though this figure, ostensibly Christ (or the idea formerly of Him), arose as though still suffering because it did not come from Original Sin but from mere existence (and therefore from God), but having risen the figure finds that the cross was merely an optional form of 'ascending to his destiny' (lower-case 'his' because this figure theoretically represents anyone without regard to sex, which isn't important in the believe system represented by this totem).
By "Schrödinger's Original Sin", to return to the point, this figure represents as it were the effects of Original Sin without the cause, hence it is 'there and not there'. ~
On second thought, this might be related to what I might call "Schrödinger's Original Sin". It is there and not there at the same time, as we see with this novelty, which can be interpreted as though this figure, ostensibly Christ (or the idea formerly of Him), arose as though still suffering because it did not come from Original Sin but from mere existence (and therefore from God), but having risen the figure finds that the cross was merely an optional form of 'ascending to his destiny' (lower-case 'his' because this figure theoretically represents anyone without regard to sex, which isn't important in the believe system represented by this totem).
By "Schrödinger's Original Sin", to return to the point, this figure represents as it were the effects of Original Sin without the cause, hence it is 'there and not there'. ~
[To explain: The errors of Teilhard de Chardin seems to be manifest in this figure. His errors can be summarized by saying that mankind is 'evolving' into a higher form represented by Christ. This is why the crucifix is transfigured here not to represent the Redemption but instead the suffering underwent by mankind during this process.]
No comments:
Post a Comment
--