The Golden Key of Evolution - Involution and Dependent Variables in Symmetry

This is a spinoff from this thread: It's thanks to evolution...

Discussion Topic: Do the laws of invariant symmetry imply that there is an independent archetype for variety in nature?

I would like to point out that purpose cannot come from purposelessness. Purpose implies intent, and unintention cannot create intention. Intention is by design. While we see the differentiation of faces as a evolution of seed diversity among humanity, our current understanding of natural law and physics implies that evolution cannot come apart from involution. Evolution is a result and not the cause. Involution is the cause.

Like information, bits of data are informed, or formed within. Seed is planted inside, then comes forth as the form it dictates. An oak tree is not the acorn and the acorn is not the oak tree. Each form carries the same seed, and the seed itself is the image of both the acorn and it's information shell (seed). Information makes the form (like the human face).

If you approach this from the perspective of a catalyst in nature, all things that appear in nature format the material they are embedded in. Informed information is the key to seeing this. What is the material shell of the human body? Where does the information come from that forms within that shell? Obviously, it comes from outside the shell, but not the outside we typically associate with in and out. This 'in and out' is by dimension.

To get this, define the word Orthogonal (of or involving right angles; at right angles.) Variety must be statistically dependent. For a face to be different, it is dependent on the quantity that is statistically independent. To view the right angle aspect of this, imagine a 1D line. Many 1D lines make a 2D plane. They are Orthogonal, or at right angles. Move to the next right angle from 2D to 3D and you have the human face. The human face then changes states in time, or at right angles in space from motion (4D). What is at right angles to time? Probability. Where is probability in relation to the 3 dimensions below of mater? Again, what is independent of the statistical variety?

Once you get this, you know the golden key to evolution. Involution is the key that shows you the variety based on the independent archetype. The Seed is the archetype, but not its shell. It's the information inside.

Why do we know that a horse is not a dog? Why is a human face and that of a monkey different? They are from a differing independent archetypes. The dependent archetype then has variety, but never apart from its independent archetype.

Involution

Involution is based on a set of independent designs that do not change. This is proven by the laws that govern symmetry. The Strong Force in nature is the law of invariant symmetry. Proton and Neutron are governed by this law. Electrons do not follow the law, therefore, we have a multiplicity of elements, all of which, are based on the independent variable of invariant symmetry. In other words, it does not change. This is where the electron comes in. It follows translational symmetry, or translating what is governed by the invariant symmetry that does not change. Electrons are the variable.

Take it from any right angle you want, but evolution is a result and not a cause. The cause is the independent variable and it never changes. It's the anchor that holds the species.

Faces are a translation from the original image.

Genesis 1

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

They are all held together by the Strong Force, or Aleph (Strong) Bet (House) (Father in Hebrew). What do the letters of the Aleph Bet hold together as the anchor holding the shell?

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Word (Chains and links of letters), or DNA. Baptism is involution so that the form can rise to new life (Evolution). Science documents evolution, but never speaks of involution of the archetype. It is supposed that the archetypes we see in nature all sprung up from a purposeless and unintentional universe.

What does the science actually say to us if we are honest?

From the smallest quark and particle yet undiscovered to the largest galaxies, we are designed with intent. All of it, informed by light. We are enlightened by what light reveals. Light cannot be seen, but reveals what it hits. Information is then formed within the shell we use to sense the world around us. None of it comes from lower dimensions up, but higher dimensions down. It can be no other way.

If you know your linear mathematics, then chew on this statistics definition:

Orthogonal secondary definition - (of variates) statistically independent.

IAm14AndThisIsDeep.jpg

Another sermon, another word soup of nonsense. Science doesn't support creationism or the notion of gods, no matter how hard you try and bend and abuse it to your faith.

originally posted by: GetHyped
IAm14AndThisIsDeep.jpg

Another sermon, another word soup of nonsense. Science doesn't support creationism or the notion of gods, no matter how hard you try and bend and abuse it to your faith.

Your reply talks about me as the object of your premise. It says what you think, but not why. That's not an argument and neither is your opinion of me. How is it that science supports evolution? I agree that science supports it, but not as a cause. It's a result. Answer this question using an argument from symmetry laws and information theory or you have said nothing. The OP stands solid on the evidence and the science / mathematics behind the conclusion. Orthogonal Linear mathematics in a matrix denies your conclusion. You said word soup because you may not have researched the terms.

Invariant Symmetry
Translational Symmetry
Involution
Orthogonal Linear Mathematics
Liner Matrix
All things pertaining to information theory and entropy in information
Strong and Weak Nuclear Force

The thread was clear and the use of the terms above were ingredients in a well made pot of truth.

originally posted by: AlephBet

originally posted by: GetHyped
IAm14AndThisIsDeep.jpg

Another sermon, another word soup of nonsense. Science doesn't support creationism or the notion of gods, no matter how hard you try and bend and abuse it to your faith.

Your reply talks about me as the object of your premise. It says what you think, but not why. That's not an argument and neither is your opinion of me. How is it that science supports evolution? I agree that science supports it, but not as a cause. It's a result. Answer this question using an argument from symmetry laws and information theory or you have said nothing. The OP stands solid on the evidence and the science / mathematics behind the conclusion. Orthogonal Linear mathematics in a matrix denies your conclusion. You said word soup because you may not have researched the terms.

Invariant Symmetry
Involution
Orthogonal Linear Mathematics
Liner Matrix
All things pertaining to information theory and entropy in information
Strong and Weak Nuclear Force

The thread was clear and the use of the terms above were ingredients in a well made pot of truth.

can i ask what degrees you have? or in another way of saying it, how can we trust that you are actually applying any of these ideas and theories correctly? i know i certainly dont. you named 6 different studies in mathematics and physics, but i see more scripture than i ever see math or physics from you. you play word games using etymology, thats as scholarly as i have seen you get. i can do the same thing with a mcdonalds menu and turn it into satan's personal billboard. its not impressive, believe it or not. so i want to know how i can trust that you arent misrepresenting these carious fields in the way that you apply them. im sure im not the only one asking.

edit: you know what never mind. i dont want any part of this.

Utter and complete garbage and gobbledygook.

Infact, I would wager that anyone who clicks the gobbledygook generator in this link would think its an Enochwasright quote...

Gobbledygook Generator

a reply to: Prezbo369

Let me try:

You really can't fail with interactive third-generation capability. The solution can only be functional reciprocal innovation. It's time to revamp and reboot our homogenised modular concepts. It's time to revamp and reboot our homogenised modular concepts. The consultants recommend ambient incremental options. At base level, this just comes down to parallel relative alignment.

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew 9:36
But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

Philippians 4:11-13
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.






All in all, pretty spot on as far as OP and gobbledygook go!

a reply to: TzarChasm

can i ask what degrees you have? or in another way of saying it, how can we trust that you are actually applying any of these ideas and theories correctly? i know i certainly dont. you named 6 different studies in mathematics and physics, but i see more scripture than i ever see math or physics from you. you play word games using etymology, thats as scholarly as i have seen you get. i can do the same thing with a mcdonalds menu and turn it into satan's personal billboard. its not impressive, believe it or not. so i want to know how i can trust that you arent misrepresenting these carious fields in the way that you apply them. im sure im not the only one asking.

edit: you know what never mind. i dont want any part of this.

You are talking about me and not the subject. It is equivalent to me asking:

"Is your shift key broke?" Your argument can't be true if you don't capitalize sentences."

This, of course, is not a valid discussion point. My example above as an argument has no relation to the subject. It addresses you and not what is being discussed. Pick one of the domains of science and discuss the OP if my premise can be argued. For all we know, you may have something valuable to add.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

Utter and complete garbage and gobbledygook.

Infact, I would wager that anyone who clicks the gobbledygook generator in this link would think its an Enochwasright quote...

Gobbledygook Generator

Same Ad Hominem as usual. Try using some reason and some soft of scientific basis for your premise. Ad hominem won't work here. It's the dead horse you are beating. The OP is still very much alive.

a reply to: GetHyped

Philippians 4:11-13
11 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

Not sure about your comment, but the verse you quote is a good one in relation to this thread. The strong house is the invariant symmetry from physics. When we consider the strong force, we see the law of symmetry that all things abide in. It can be reasoned very easily that this strong force is above the fifth dimension of probability. Probability is governed by law and law is above the lower dimensions of cause and effect. Law is the key to seeing how the lower is produced by the upper. It goes back to what I was showing in the OP. All dimensions below are shadows at right angles to the independent variable above. The independent archetype is the invariant anchor for the dependent values below. It can be no other way.

Here, the verse in Philippians is showing how we become the strong force ourselves when we abide in the law. We then become a mirror to the invariant nature of the one that designed us. Evolution is rising to new life, or becoming like our source nature. Until then, the law allows us to translate the image toward that goal through various trials and tribulations. Overcoming the law is overcoming the need for it.

Thank you for the verse. It was very relevant.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Prezbo369

Let me try:

You really can't fail with interactive third-generation capability. The solution can only be functional reciprocal innovation. It's time to revamp and reboot our homogenised modular concepts. It's time to revamp and reboot our homogenised modular concepts. The consultants recommend ambient incremental options. At base level, this just comes down to parallel relative alignment.

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew 9:36
But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

Philippians 4:11-13
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.






All in all, pretty spot on as far as OP and gobbledygook go!

Nailed it

I realize a few of you are having trouble getting the connection between concepts. Here is a short key (WIKI) for the terms used:

-Invariant Symmetry

In physics, symmetry includes all features of a physical system that exhibit the property of symmetry—that is, under certain transformations, aspects of these systems are otherwise "unchanged", according to a particular observation. A symmetry of a physical system is a physical or mathematical feature of the system (observed or intrinsic) that is "preserved" under some change.

Invariance is specified mathematically by transformations that leave some quantity unchanged. This idea can apply to basic real-world observations. For example, temperature may be constant throughout a room. Since the temperature is independent of position within the room, the temperature is invariant under a shift in the measurer's position.

Similarly, a uniform sphere rotated about its center will appear exactly as it did before the rotation. The sphere is said to exhibit spherical symmetry. A rotation about any axis of the sphere will preserve how the sphere "looks".

---In nature, law governs all outcomes. It is invariant and symmetric. The Strong Nuclear Force follows invariant symmetry. It is unchanging.

-Translational Symmetry

Laws of physics are translationally invariant under a spatial translation if they do not distinguish different points in space. According to Noether's theorem, space translational symmetry of a physical system is equivalent to the momentum conservation law.

Translational symmetry of an object means that a particular translation does not change the object. For a given object, the translations for which this applies form a group, the symmetry group of the object, or, if the object has more kinds of symmetry, a subgroup of the symmetry group

Translational invariance implies that, at least in one direction, the object is infinite: for any given point p, the set of points with the same properties due to the translational symmetry form the infinite discrete set...In spaces with dimension higher than 1, there may be multiple translational symmetry.

---The weak force in nature does not follow invariant symmetry laws. Translational symmetries apply and are heeled by the Strong Force.

-Involution

In Mathematics: A simple example of an involution of the three-dimensional Euclidean space is reflection against a plane. Performing a reflection twice brings a point back to its original coordinates. Another is the so-called reflection through the origin; this is an abuse of language as it is not a reflection, though it is an involution.
These transformations are examples of affine involutions.

In Philosophy: In philosophy, involution refers to a situation in which a process or object is ontologically "turned in" upon itself.

In Religion: In some instances it refers to a process that occurs prior to evolution and gives rise to the cosmos, in others an aspect of evolution, and still others a process that follows the completion of evolution in the human form.

---In all three cases, we have the reflection of an image upon itself. Compare this to the concepts of baptism and rising to new life, and the evolution of species reaching the zenith of their development. In nature, all archetypical forms are derived from the first form, or fully developed form. We are promised a new crown (mind) and robe (body) when this dispensation of time is complete. God judges the process, then remakes the entire creation. All things in nature involve from the original archetype, then evolve back again. Self-discovery is this process to examine the other various archetypes in nature.

-Orthogonal Matrix

Thus finite-dimensional linear isometries—rotations, reflections, and their combinations—produce orthogonal matrices. The converse is also true: orthogonal matrices imply orthogonal transformations. However, linear algebra includes orthogonal transformations between spaces which may be neither finite-dimensional nor of the same dimension, and these have no orthogonal matrix equivalent. Orthogonal matrices are important for a number of reasons, both theoretical and practical.

---The human mind cannot comprehend how the lower dimensions are at right angles to the higher. The easiest example is the one I used in the OP. 1D is the shadow of 2D (at right angles). Move a 2D line at a right angle and get a 3D object. Move the 3D object in the linear matrix and any direction is a right angle to the original location. The same applies to the dimension we cannot see above us (time). 3D objects are the shadow of time (4D). The fourth dimension is the shadow of probability, which is where evolution starts. Until the lower dimensions are involved into probability, they cannot change states. States cannot change from chaos to unity apart from a higher dimension than probability. Why? Probabilities are governed by symmetry laws and those laws are fixed and symmetric. Collapsing wave function is a produce of the higher order and not the lower. For evolution to be the cause, it would need to be lower to higher.

Liner Matrix

A reflection is its own inverse, which implies that a reflection matrix is symmetric (equal to its transpose) as well as orthogonal. The product of two rotation matrices is a rotation matrix, and the product of two reflection matrices is also a rotation matrix.

Inverse square laws are part of symmetry laws. The image of God is inverse to the image of man. Just as the laws of God are translational to every domain below as in an image. Like impenetrability between two chiral objects, two things cannot be superimposed on each other apart from a catalyst. Nature / Matter / Matrix / Mater / Mother is the catalyst of information informed into the catalyst. Mathematics proves this as the higher axiom of truth. All other lower contradictions are resolved if involution is seen by the light of linear mathematics by dimension.

All things pertaining to information theory and entropy in information:

a reply to: AlephBet

Interesting thread, I left you a U2U so check that out when you can

a reply to: AnuTyr

Haven't seen it yet, but I will watch for it.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Prezbo369

Let me try:

You really can't fail with interactive third-generation capability. The solution can only be functional reciprocal innovation. It's time to revamp and reboot our homogenised modular concepts. It's time to revamp and reboot our homogenised modular concepts. The consultants recommend ambient incremental options. At base level, this just comes down to parallel relative alignment.

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew 9:36
But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

Philippians 4:11-13
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.






All in all, pretty spot on as far as OP and gobbledygook go!

you forgot the etymology stuff. other than that...SuperiorEd, is that you?

a reply to: AlephBet

You are talking about me and not the subject. It is equivalent to me asking:

"Is your shift key broke?" Your argument can't be true if you don't capitalize sentences."

This, of course, is not a valid discussion point. My example above as an argument has no relation to the subject. It addresses you and not what is being discussed. Pick one of the domains of science and discuss the OP if my premise can be argued. For all we know, you may have something valuable to add.

well of course. i will say that i am curious regarding how qualified you are to forensically examine language. it would have helped me to understand whether you were someone worth listening to...or just another conspiracy theorist, as it were. are you a professor? a scientist? have you ever been either a professor or scientist? perhaps one of a team of prestigious researchers reluctant to drop their cloak of anonymity to preserve the integrity of their program?

thing is, it was a shorter and simpler task for me to address the educational background from which you have posted these bull crap threads than to explain exactly how your threads are full of bull crap. more to the point, you wouldnt have listened anyway. i know this because i have watched you sing idly to yourself in the face of criticism before. you dont care what we have to say unless its "yes you are right".

and thats what i dont care to point your mistakes out to you specifically because in your eyes, the only mistakes you could make are in not credditing god at the right point in your sermon.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You are once again taking the low road talking about me. This is the problem here with what you are calling crap. You call it crap without ever referring to its opposite. Speak to the subject. You say it's crap. How so? What are you points to make. Quote me from the OP, then show the truth if there a higher axiom. I would gladly admit it if there were. I fully expect there is and this is what I wait for. My premise and platform rests on the highest axiom of all--the Word of God. Theory from our best minds in the world only amounts to a metaphor of what is observed. I simply continue to show that the Bible holds the highest axiom possible. As long as I stick with the correct image to describe, no other images can rise to the original.

Give it a go. Speak to the subject and use quotes and links and anything else you can find. Leave me out of it or you have said nothing--again. I'm not important. What is said in the OP is important. The image I presented is not of me, but of the Creator of the universe that I am seeking to know. It's the goal of the image.

a reply to: AlephBet

When I'm on a better device perhaps. Or maybe ill just delete this thread from my list of things I care about.

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: TzarChasm

can i ask what degrees you have? or in another way of saying it, how can we trust that you are actually applying any of these ideas and theories correctly? i know i certainly dont. you named 6 different studies in mathematics and physics, but i see more scripture than i ever see math or physics from you. you play word games using etymology, thats as scholarly as i have seen you get. i can do the same thing with a mcdonalds menu and turn it into satan's personal billboard. its not impressive, believe it or not. so i want to know how i can trust that you arent misrepresenting these carious fields in the way that you apply them. im sure im not the only one asking.

edit: you know what never mind. i dont want any part of this.

You are talking about me and not the subject. It is equivalent to me asking:

"Is your shift key broke?" Your argument can't be true if you don't capitalize sentences."

This, of course, is not a valid discussion point. My example above as an argument has no relation to the subject. It addresses you and not what is being discussed. Pick one of the domains of science and discuss the OP if my premise can be argued. For all we know, you may have something valuable to add.

I agree! We need a more contemporary reimagining of our holistic administrative programming.

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science."

--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

a reply to: AlephBet

There must of been a seed with the source codes. The seeds which contained the words written in Gods language which everything was birthed from.

A seed is made to bare more seeds by design. Life will go on for God wills it. Amen.