Is an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence capable of changing the golden mean ?

[Monk-Eye]

" Is an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence capable of changing the golden mean ? "

* Justify Your Answer *

Why are " yes and or no " , or " yes and no " , or " yes or no " , not poll options ?

Golden ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[keepitreal]

I don't understand the math

 

[onefour1]

I am not familiar with the phrase, "golden mean". Please explain what this is?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Idk, but it would surely mess up the human system of weights and measures if it was done.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Immutable Characteristics "

* Natural Occurrence Logic *

What math ?

Cut a line in two unequal parts and there are three lengths to compare : a , b , a + b .

The golden ratio is a ratio where b / a = a + b / b ; or , a / b = b / a + b .

Explained in laity , the golden mean is when the ratio of the longer line over the shorter line equals the ratio of the longer line ( whole length ) over the shorter line ( longer length ) ; or , vice-a-versa .

 

[onefour1]

Never mind I read parts of the article you posted which expains it.

 

[bluzman61]

" Is an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence capable of changing the golden mean ? "

* Justify Your Answer *

Why are " yes and or no " , or " yes and no " , or " yes or no " , not poll options ?

Golden ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes. Only and ONLY if that person or being has enough power and money to do so. Bill Gates, for example. Or the devil incarnate himself, George Soros.

 

[MisterBeale]

This is a meaningless question based on a ego bound temporal existence. At the point when one starts to ascend and truly understand the how the "omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence" operates, one understands that the "golden mean," is, at least, at this level, but an illusion.

This question makes about as much sense as asking an astrophysicist, how would one find the ratio of a golden mean in a black hole?

And generally? Most physicists and mathematicians will tell you that this is the case.

In the beginning, all time and space were at one, and, for theologians, in the beginning, was the word, and that is, in it's essence, but a thought. This is what brought "all" into existence. OUR existence is the collective thought of creation.

In a singularity? There is no "golden mean" when all time and space are one. The "golden mean," is only our individual agreed upon illusion, for the creator. There is no "golden mean," that is just a function of the illusion.

That is entanglement. The laws of all mathematics and physics are meaningless curiosities, only to entertain our egos.

 

[onefour1]

My response would be, it depends on whether changing the "golden ratio" or "golden mean" is an eternal impossibility or not. Let me explain. My personal belief system is that omnipotence is limited to all things that are possible. If something is eternally impossible, then even an omnipotent cannot make it happen. However, I don't know enough about what is and isn't possible in the realm of mathematics to make a solid commitment as to whether it is a possibility or impossibility.

My belief system is from the revelations given through the Prophet Joseph Smith. God revealed to him one eternal impossibility found in Doctrine and Covenants 93:29. Here it is revealed that mankind has always existed. Mankind before being organized as the spirit children of God and before being organized on this earth as mankind existed as intelligences and were never created or made and neither indeed can be. This means that a part of mankind is self-existent. God could not create that which is self-existent. The scriptures also reveal that elements are eternal, see Doctrine and Covenants 93:33. To me, this means creation is the process of organizing not creating out of nothing. Thus revealing a second eternal impossibility of ex nihilo creation.

To me, these concepts also give answer as to why God did not simply create mankind to be perfect from the beginning. If the self-existent intelligences were never created or made but have always existed, then they could not be made perfect from nothingness but already exist in whatever intelligent state they, at the time they are created, are in. This gives answer to such questions as, "if god is all powerful, then why does evil exist on this earth?" Imperfect man causes much of the evil and God allows many natural disasters to occur on this earth to allow man to distinguish between good and evil and learn from this temporary school of mortality.

I also believe that there is intelligence associated with all of the creations of God other than mankind. So, when God grants power over the elements to a prophet, that prophet can command in the name of Jesus Christ and the very elements obey him. If you want a mountain to move, just tell it to move and the intelligences associated with the elements obey, or if you want to change water to wine, command it to be so and, if you have the authority from God, it will be done. Through the power of God, you can speak to the intelligences associated with the elements and they obey. I believe healings, raising from the dead, parting of the Red Sea, and all other miracles are the result of obedient intelligence. God or one who holds his authority can command and things obey. In this light, something that is following the law of the "golden ratio" does so because that is the law given unto it to obey. The laws of chemistry are standard laws of God given to the elements to obey. If God wishes them to obey another law, He can simply command them to do so and it will be done. God is the great lawgiver and determines the law by which the elements are to obey. But whether that law, in and of itself, can be changed to mean something different than what it currently means, I would doubt it. God can use different laws but whether He changes their meaning seems unnecessary. The belief of obedience of the elements is also established in scripture ( see Abraham 4:10,12,18,21,25,31)

Others might believe that omnipotence refers to unrestricted power and in such a belief, absolutely anything imaginable would be possible. For example, God could be a being who is all good and all evil simultaneously. God could also both exist and never exist simultaneously. You see, there is no limit on omnipotence under such a belief. But I believe that there are impossible scenarios that limit God's power to only those things which are eternally possible. We may not have a full understanding of all the things that are possible and what is not, but without a limit, you can imagine whatever and it would be possible even if it seems incredibly absurd. My definition of omnipotence is being able to do all that is possible.

 

[ding]

" Immutable Characteristics "

* Natural Occurrence Logic *

What math ?

Cut a line in two unequal parts and there are three lengths to compare : a , b , a + b .

The golden ratio is a ratio where b / a = a + b / b ; or , a / b = b / a + b .

Explained in laity , the golden mean is when the ratio of the longer line over the shorter line equals the ratio of the longer line ( whole length ) over the shorter line ( longer length ) ; or , vice-a-versa .

This is only slightly less stupid than asking if God can create a rock he can’t pick up.

it’s a paradox and like most paradox the error lies in the logic of the question.

God opposing himself is not a sign of omnipotence, it would be a sign of weakness. Among other things, God is logic. Logic never opposes itself.

 

[Newtonian]

Golden mean | Definition, Aristotle, Maimonides, Buddhism, Confucianism, & Facts

Golden mean, in philosophy, an approach to ethics that emphasizes finding the appropriate medium, or middle ground, between extremes. The phrase golden mean is most frequently applied to the ethical ideas described by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 bce) in his treatise Nicomachean

www.britannica.com

"In ethics: Aristotle
…to be known as the Golden Mean; it is essentially the same as the Buddha’s middle path between self-indulgence and self-renunciation. Thus, courage, for example, is the mean between two extremes:..."

We do not believe it the teachings of Aristotle - for example, Genesis 1:1 contradicts the notion of an eternal universe and clearly states it had a beginning.

However, there are also math definitions - one example is the Fibonacci ratio which our literature comments on - for example:

Intriguing Patterns in Plants — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

See the article for details - conclusion:

"Interestingly, the number of spirals that result from growth based on the golden angle is usually a number from a series called the Fibonacci sequence. This series was first described by the 13th-century Italian mathematician known as Leonardo Fibonacci. In this progression, each number after 1 is equal to the sum of the previous two numbers—1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, and so on.

The flowers of many plants that exhibit a spiral growth pattern often have a Fibonacci number of petals. According to some observers, there is a tendency for buttercups to have 5 petals, bloodroots 8, fireweeds 13, asters 21, common field daisies 34, and Michaelmas daisies 55 or 89. (See figure 6.) Fruit and vegetables often have features that correspond to Fibonacci numbers. Bananas, for example, have a five-sided cross section.

“Everything He Has Made Pretty”

Artists have long recognized the golden proportion as the most pleasing to our eyes. What makes plants form new growths precisely at this intriguing angle? Many people conclude that this is but another example of intelligent design in living things.

In contemplating the design of living things and our capacity to find pleasure in them, many discern the hand of a Creator who wants us to enjoy life. Of our Creator the Bible says: “Everything he has made pretty in its time.”—Ecclesiastes 3:11.

[Footnote]

Curiously, the sunflower is unusual in that the florets that become seeds begin to form spirals from the rim of the head rather than the center."

 

[Newtonian]

5 Examples of the Fibonacci Sequence in Plants - SunnyScope

The Fibonacci sequence – aka Golden Ratio – is used in photography, design, marine life...and plants? Find out how.

www.sunnysports.com

5 Examples of the Fibonacci Sequence in Plants

The Fibonacci sequence was initially developed by Leonardo Fibonacci while he was calculating the expansion of groups of rabbits over a year. The Fibonacci sequence’s ratios and patterns (phi=1.61803…) are evident from micro to macro scales all over our known universe. Although the Fibonacci sequence (aka Golden Ratio) doesn’t appear in every facet of known structures, it does in many, and this is especially true for plants.
Leaves
via flickr/Genista
The Fibonacci sequence in plants is quite abundant, and leaves are one of the best examples. When growing off the branch, Fibonacci can be viewed in their stems as well as their veins. The more they grow outward, the higher the Fibonacci sequence is visible.

Pinecones
via flickr/Felipe Del Valle Batalla
When looking closely at the seed pod of a pinecone, you’ll notice an arranged spiral pattern. Each cone has its own set of spirals moving outwards in opposing directions.

Flower Petals
via flickr/jc.najera
The petals of a flower grow in a manner consistent with the Fibonacci. Of the most visible Fibonacci sequence in plants, lilies, which have three petals, and buttercups, with their five petals, are some of the most easily recognized.

Seed Heads
via flickr/storebukkebruse
A flower’s head is also where you’ll find the Fibonacci sequence in plants. Most of the time, seeds come from the center and migrate out. A perfect example of this is sunflowers with their spiraling patterns. At points, their seed heads get so packed that their number can get exceptionally high, sometimes as much as 144 and more. When analyzing these spirals, the number is almost always Fibonacci.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" A'Priori Characteristics Are Intrinsic Innate Immutable "

* An Answer Seems Available *

This is only slightly less stupid than asking if God can create a rock he can’t pick up. it’s a paradox and like most paradox the error lies in the logic of the question. God opposing himself is not a sign of omnipotence, it would be a sign of weakness. Among other things, God is logic. Logic never opposes itself.

Is it a valid characteristic of strength that its wielder may exercise weakness ?

Is it a valid characteristic of weakness that its wielder may only exercise weakness ?

An assumption of first principles for naturalism or for theism is that all which exists be of the a'priori and intelligible .

An assumption of first principles for naturalism is that nature cannot be separated from itself , whereby nature would be expected to include projections of the a'priori .

Some theists issue a constraint that gowad is separable from nature and is neither intrinsic with its qualities nor equivalent with nature itself .

A question to the op question might be , " How could a an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence be convinced that it is possible to modify an a'priori characteristic ? " .

* Would Have Certainly Presumed Awareness Buy Now *

A priori and a posteriori - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" which must follow it. Thus, the two kinds of knowledge, justification, or argument, may be glossed:

• A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).[note 1]
• A posteriori knowledge or justification depends on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.

There are many points of view on these two types of knowledge, and their relationship gives rise to one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy.
The terms a priori and a posteriori are primarily used as modifiers to the noun "knowledge" (for example, "a priori knowledge"). However, "a priori" is sometimes used to modify other nouns, such as "truth". Philosophers also may use "apriority" and "aprioricity" as nouns to refer (approximately) to the quality of being "a priori".

 

[ding]

Is it a valid characteristic of strength that its wielder may exercise weakness ?

Accomplishing an objective without using force isn’t a weakness. It is the ultimate sign of power.

Is it a valid characteristic of weakness that its wielder may only exercise weakness ?

Not necessarily. Weakness is not having the courage to do the right thing the right way for the right reason.

 

[ding]

An assumption of first principles for naturalism or for theism is that all which exists be of the a'priori and intelligible .

Actually more than just intelligible.

An assumption of first principles for naturalism is that nature cannot be separated from itself , whereby nature would be expected to include projections of the a'priori

True

Some theists issue a constraint that gowad is separable from nature and is neither intrinsic with its qualities nor equivalent with nature itself .

True

A question to the op question might be , " How could a an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence be convinced that it is possible to modify an a'priori characteristic ? " .

God’s nature isn’t nature. God is eternal and unchanging despite whatever illogical paradox one wishes to employ.

 

[luchitociencia]

This is a meaningless question based on a ego bound temporal existence. At the point when one starts to ascend and truly understand the how the "omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence" operates, one understands that the "golden mean," is, at least, at this level, but an illusion.

This question makes about as much sense as asking an astrophysicist, how would one find the ratio of a golden mean in a black hole?

And generally? Most physicists and mathematicians will tell you that this is the case.

In the beginning, all time and space were at one, and, for theologians, in the beginning, was the word, and that is, in it's essence, but a thought. This is what brought "all" into existence. OUR existence is the collective thought of creation.

In a singularity? There is no "golden mean" when all time and space are one. The "golden mean," is only our individual agreed upon illusion, for the creator. There is no "golden mean," that is just a function of the illusion.

That is entanglement. The laws of all mathematics and physics are meaningless curiosities, only to entertain our egos.

Black holes? Space time? Come on, those are doctrines from an already proved false theory: Relativity.

On the other hand, the OP with his title assumes a hypothetical presence that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresence.

That "presence" with such characteristics doesn't exist in reality.

Then, the OP wants you to solve a kind of situation where a hypothetical presence will deal with abstract mathematics.

Why this thread is in religion forum?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

" Is an omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence capable of changing the golden mean ? "

* Justify Your Answer *

Why are " yes and or no " , or " yes and no " , or " yes or no " , not poll options ?

Golden ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your thread title is incorrect.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Monotheism Foundations Boisterous Claims "

* Forwarding Interests From Antiquity *

God’s nature isn’t nature. God is eternal and unchanging despite whatever illogical paradox one wishes to employ.

One may equally acclaim that nature is eternal , while unchanging would be most illogical for any quality of infinitude .

Consider a monad to be an infinitessimal , that is also an identity element , that is also an infinite number , that is also a smallest geometric entity of which all is comprised .

Now consider that an infinite number is without an end , such that a monad is ascribed a quality of infinitude .

By hermeneutics , has it been establish that a monad always was and always will be ?

Now an identity set can be both infinite , closed and complete ; so how could goawd or nature be extricable from itself ?

The theories of a monad can be interrelated with theistic monism , except there are issues .

A presumption that all of existence is comprised of infinitessimal monads would presuppose that a monad is inchoate rather than omniscient .

Hence monads would exhibit some disposition based upon its infinite quality , but would be cognitively indifferent to event outcomes .

 

[ding]

" Monotheism Foundations Boisterous Claims "

* Forwarding Interests From Antiquity *

God’s nature isn’t nature. God is eternal and unchanging despite whatever illogical paradox one wishes to employ.

One may equally acclaim that nature is eternal , while unchanging would be most illogical even for a goawd .

Consider a monad to be an infinitessimal , that is also an identity element , that is also an infinite number , that is also a smallest geometric entity of which all is comprised .

Now consider that an infinite number is without an end , such that a monad is ascribed a quality of infinitude .

By hermeneutics , has it been establish that a monad always was and always will be ?

Now an identity set can be both infinite , closed and complete ; so how could goawd or nature be extricable from itself ?

The theories of a monad can be interrelated with theistic monism , except there are issues .

A presumption that all of existence is comprised of infinitessimal monads would presuppose that a monad is inchoate rather than omniscient .

Hence monads would exhibit some disposition based upon its infinite quality .

Do the right thing, the right way, for the right reason.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Doing Good Things Increases A Probability That Good Things Will Occur "

* One Right Wing Flapping In A Circle Not Flying *

Do the right thing, the right way, for the right reason.

Do the correct thing , the correct way , for the correct reason .