Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First Council of Nicaea

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: First Council of Nicaea

#61

Post by knightoffaith »

082349872349872 wrote: post #60
knightoffaith wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Creation is the maximal object that could be created from God Well, just the only one, but I suppose the maximal element of a set with one element is just that element, so yeah. >Creation determines God, in that God is the minimal object that could create the Creation Well, the only thing that could create Creation, but I suppose the minimal element of a set with one element is just that element, so yeah. >Aquinas d…

Yes, I was purposely playing with the trivial definitions of maximal and minimal (max{x} = min{x} = x) to draw out an analogy with the modern concept of Galois Connections. > there's nothing else he can do. Right, and I thought Aquinas' take was that he must be capable of doing otherwise, but doesn't. > we can only perceive things with respect to two attributes Aha, so this universe uses all (are they countable?) att…

>Right, and I thought Aquinas' take was that he must be capable of doing otherwise, but doesn't.

Yep, that's right.

>are they countable?

Spinoza doesn't specify.

But yep, in principle other attributes could be perceived---they are perceived, for example, by God for Spinoza.

Re: First Council of Nicaea

#62

Post by knightoffaith »

082349872349872 wrote: post #59
knightoffaith wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are both ontological proofs, yep. Though Godel is using modal logic, which won't be invented for centuries until after Spinoza's time.

oops, I was reading the "contingent things must be dependent upon necessary things" as implying modality, but you're right that if it's there it's only implicit.

right, there is something modal going on here, but in terms of the formal mathematical tool of modal logic, Spinoza isn't using them, though I think you understood that from the start.

Re: First Council of Nicaea

#63

Post by 082349872349872 »

knightoffaith wrote: post #61
082349872349872 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I was purposely playing with the trivial definitions of maximal and minimal (max{x} = min{x} = x) to draw out an analogy with the modern concept of Galois Connections. > there's nothing else he can do. Right, and I thought Aquinas' take was that he must be capable of doing otherwise, but doesn't. > we can only perceive things with respect to two attributes Aha, so this universe uses all (are they countable?) att…

>Right, and I thought Aquinas' take was that he must be capable of doing otherwise, but doesn't. Yep, that's right. >are they countable? Spinoza doesn't specify. But yep, in principle other attributes could be perceived---they are perceived, for example, by God for Spinoza.

> Yep, that's right.

That's another reason to introduce the maximal and minimal: those def'ns would still go through even with an Aquinas-style god.

(and they yield an irreligious 1=3 trinitarian argument: if C takes a god to its maximal creation, and G takes a creation to its minimal god, then CG and GC are not necessarily the identity, but we do necessarily have C = CGC and G = GCG)

Re: First Council of Nicaea

#64

Post by 082349872349872 »

082349872349872 wrote: post #63
knightoffaith wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Right, and I thought Aquinas' take was that he must be capable of doing otherwise, but doesn't. Yep, that's right. >are they countable? Spinoza doesn't specify. But yep, in principle other attributes could be perceived---they are perceived, for example, by God for Spinoza.

> Yep, that's right. That's another reason to introduce the maximal and minimal: those def'ns would still go through even with an Aquinas-style god. (and they yield an irreligious 1=3 trinitarian argument: if C takes a god to its maximal creation, and G takes a creation to its minimal god, then CG and GC are not necessarily the identity, but we do necessarily have C = CGC and G = GCG)

noting in passing; a possible influence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#One

Re: First Council of Nicaea

#65

Post by knightoffaith »

082349872349872 wrote: post #64
082349872349872 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yep, that's right. That's another reason to introduce the maximal and minimal: those def'ns would still go through even with an Aquinas-style god. (and they yield an irreligious 1=3 trinitarian argument: if C takes a god to its maximal creation, and G takes a creation to its minimal god, then CG and GC are not necessarily the identity, but we do necessarily have C = CGC and G = GCG)

noting in passing; a possible influence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#One

Definitely, Neoplatonism was a big influence on Abrahamic philosophical thought. Though the real locus classicus for God is Aristotle's Metaphysics, specifically his description of the unmoved mover. There are some not-so-minor differences between Aristotle's theology and Abrahamic theology, but God insofar as he is the ground of all being is a concept that most clearly originated in Aristotle's work.
Post reply on HN