Final Notice
Christians and Frank Hatch
This website has not been built for Christians. They don't need it. Before I built
this website, I stated the following in the Final Notice PDF (This Adobe PDF is
also found on the Internet):
For a more extensive instruction on the objective/subjective thought
paradox, you should read the Bible, particularly the New Testament.
Since the Bible makes full use of God-given imagery, it has no use
for my childish buildings blocks of philosophical jargon. If you still
think you need a modern introduction to Christ, I recommend Mere
Christianity by C. S. Lewis. Since you'll be working on short notice,
you will not find a better book for what you need. C. S. Lewis is a
better writer than I am, and he will hold your attention longer.
I haven't changed my mind, but I've added Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton.
Both Lewis and Chesterton would recommend the Bible over this website.
Of course, Christian soldiers are always on guard against heresy, so I'm not
surprised to find some of them sniffing about the website. They are a nosey
bunch. I like them.
Granted: the subjective is no defense against heresy; but, since the objective
is part of the Test, I will not make a defense. Anyone taking the Test will need
to deal with the objective uncertainty to get their answer. (Check Reality
footnote.)
If you have figured out what is being done on this website and want to help,
forward its link at your discretion (Matthew 13: 3-23),
Best Regards,
Frank Hatch
1st Letter:
Department of Astrophysical Sciences, IAS, Princeton University:
Hi Frank,
I got your message early this morning and then later coming over it again,
I clicked on your page to see what's up. They call me an astrophysicist, I
am a Christian and to the first order your page seemed to be nonsensical.
Nevertheless, I found there many phrases that resonated within me and
are dear to me:
"Reality has an infinite number of Spaces. Existence
dominates Nonexistence. Each eternal sequence is a
point on another eternal sequence.
The Void did not make room for the Existence;
Existence made room for the Void;
God always was and always will be." and then I realized that this wisdom is
not foreign to it.
I don't know your background, but the lines "Advice from a stranger:
Don't limit your variables and don't limit your dimensions;
or you will lock yourself into an infinite loop.
Infinite loops are grand fun if you're working with subatomic particles,
but it's not so much fun if you're
working with your own soul." gives away some prior knowledge of deeper
understanding of the universality of the renormalization group formalism
at a topological level.
I know that the expression of the ineffable can be made only thru true life,
but the formalism you develop here is very hermetic, maybe that's how it
should be. Who is equal to God?
May God illumine us to straighten His paths,
In Christ,
(Name and email address removed. Anonymity is always protected on this
website. I do not maintain an email list.)
You've given me too much credit for "some prior knowledge of deeper
understanding of the universality of the renormalization group formalism
at a topological level." I think you made an honest mistake; and your mistake
was partly caused by the designed incompleteness of this website.
The Initial Mass Displacements are a "first order" delineation that I've used to
bring up a 13th Century argument between St. Thomas Aquinas and Siger of
Brabant. Thomas Aquinas won the argument, but Siger's idea dominates the
modern world.
Siger's idea briefly stated is that there are two truths: a natural truth and a
supernatural truth. Both the scientific and theological communities are
comfortable with Siger's idea, because they get to monopolize their own
separate truth. If there is a conflict between the two truths, the elites of each
community can simply ignore or rationalize the truth they don't like.
The St. Thomas approach to an attack on the singularity of Truth is more
reasonable than mine:
"Behold our refutation of error. It is not based on documents of faith, but on
the reasons and statements of the philosophers themselves."
I, however, prefer violence. The more effective approach to Siger is the
two-edged Sword, the Truth itself. The Sword of the objective/subjective
thought paradox is violent to anyone comfortable with their definition of
themselves and the human situation.
"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sad'ducees" (Matthew 16:
6,11). Both the elite scientific mind and the elite theological mind want comfort
and dignity, not the Truth.
Since Siger is thinking is terms of two minds rather than two functions of a
mind, he has failed to make a distinction between his brain and his mind.
The materialist, also, accepts this synthesis between his brain and his mind,
so does the pantheist, so does the determinist, and so does environmentalist.
It's comfortable. It is their religion.
With the "baptism" of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas should get credit for his
insight, knowledge, depth, and universality - not me - I just swing the Sword.
To quote G. K. Chesterton again: "His [Thomas Aquinas] Aristotelianism
simply meant that the study of the humblest fact will lead to the study of the
highest truth."
Since First Space is infinitely polarized between every Closed System and the
Open System, each point of polarization has a narrow gate to the highest
Truth - whether the Closed System is defined to be a subatomic particle,
a planet, or a loaf of bread.
In Christ,
Frank Hatch
2nd Letter:
Physics Student, George Mason University:
I am a physics student, but first I am a Catholic Christian. Since you claim
to be teaching about Christianity, I would strongly urge you to submit
yourself to the authority of the Catholic Church before you teach.
Remember that those who teach will be judged more strictly. You quote
physicists who have responded to your website, but I do not see what is
truly important for a page that claims to be teaching about Christianity -
evidence that you submit yourself to the Church, think with the mind of
the Church, and are interested in what the Church has to say about your
views. A simple disclaimer that these are your personal views, not
infallible, and not necessarily what the Church teaches, will be helpful
both for you and the readers of your website.
Giving yourself the same authority as Scripture is extremely dangerous
and goes against Church teaching and Scripture itself. You will find it
better not to place your "final notice" in the same category as Scripture.
Respectfully,
(Name and email address removed)
For the most part, your letter is already answered by this website, but I would
like to bring out a couple points in your letter. As Christians, it is our duty to
respectfully wash each others feet. I've noticed that I'm the one using a brush;
this is evidence that you are probably a nicer person than me. Although this
website is a courtesy, courtesy is not its primary function.
". . . think with the mind of the Church . . ." bad poetry or simple heresy?
The Head of the Church is Jesus Christ, our Lord. The Church is the Body of
Christ. "Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his
counselor?" (Romans 11:34) "Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord or as his
counselor has instructed him?" (Isaiah 40:13) "But we have the mind of
Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16) Yes, but His mind and Spirit are for our
instruction, not for our absorption. We have our own minds. We think with our
own minds. Jesus Christ will not steal your individuality. He will deepen your
individuality - you will "be transformed by the renewal of your mind." (Romans
12:2) "For as in one body we have many members, and all members do not
have the same function" (Romans 12:4). You have your own mind, and Christ
expects you to use it: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37)
As a Christian, you must make decisions in your own mind: "Let every one be
fully convinced in his own mind." (Romans 14:5) The choice to become a
Christian is done with your own mind. This is not a group-think decision.
Pantheists believe in group-think. Hegelian rationalists believe in group-think.
Islamists believe in group-think. The Life-force (Bio-monist) believes in
group-think. Legion believes in group-think: "My name is Legion; for we are
many." (Mark 5:9)
With your own mind, you should know what you believe. If you are a Catholic
Christian, let me remind you:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in
Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and
was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the
dead. He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, the Father
Almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I
believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
Amen." (Apostles' Creed)
We need to be reminded of issues of importance, because we frequently drift
away from anything good for us. We misuse our free will. On these issues, we
are reminded to be "in full accord and of one mind" (Philippians 2:2). Of
course, if that meant that we were one mind, we wouldn't need to be reminded.
It's good to go to Church and be reminded: "Set your minds on things that are
above, not on things that are on earth" (Colossians 3:2). As the Earth
approaches Chaos, you must hold fast to your faith with your own mind
(Matthew 24:5-8); "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for
God is at work in you" (Philippians 2:12-13).
"Since you claim to be teaching about Christianity, I would strongly urge
you to submit yourself to the authority of the Catholic Church before you
teach." I'm already under the authority of the Church. If I've taught you wrong,
I recognize the Church's authority and responsibility to excommunicate me.
I do "Remember that those who teach will be judged more strictly." And
those who excommunicate will be judged even more strictly.
Respectfully,
Frank Hatch
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |