more than one type of light?


askandanswer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can anyone suggest what the relationship might be between the stuff that emanates, on the one hand, from my light bulb, and the sun, and a fire, and, on the other hand, the stuff referred to in Doctrine and Covenants 88: 7-13? Are they different forms of the same thing? Are they completely different things that happen to use the same word - light- to describe them? Is the word we use for the stuff coming from my light bulb simply an analogy for the light referred to in the scriptures? Or is there some other answer? We have a guy in our stake with a Ph.D in physics, with a special interest in light, and he is not aware of any LDS or scientific studies that have considered this question, but the scriptures seem to suggest that there is a connection between these two types of light.

I can't think of anything but I'm open to the possibility. Most things that God uses to teach people have a literal aspect somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone suggest what the relationship might be between the stuff that emanates, on the one hand, from my light bulb, and the sun, and a fire, and, on the other hand, the stuff referred to in Doctrine and Covenants 88: 7-13? Are they different forms of the same thing? Are they completely different things that happen to use the same word - light- to describe them? Is the word we use for the stuff coming from my light bulb simply an analogy for the light referred to in the scriptures? Or is there some other answer? We have a guy in our stake with a Ph.D in physics, with a special interest in light, and he is not aware of any LDS or scientific studies that have considered this question, but the scriptures seem to suggest that there is a connection between these two types of light.

 

 

A difficult question. But the idea of the light is possibly meant allegorically in the scriptures.

Edited by JimmiGerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The goggles converted infrared light into visible light.  So goes back to original post asking about differences between what is emenating (key word) from light bulbs vs the light of intelligence type light.

 

An interesting side question would be, is there intelligence type light that does not emit (i.e - placed under a bushel)?   The metaphor might have to do more with the characteristics of light emmision and giving light to other things as opposed to just light itself. 

 

Again I am suggesting that the references to light associated with G-d is intended to be symbolic not empirical.  In the symbolic example of infrared light being seen by goggles - I would make the symbolic comparison to faith being symbolic to goggles as necessary to see light that cannot be seen by "natural eyes".  This is not intended to say that infrared light is divine light and that goggles are the same as having faith but to give symbolic example.

 

Likewise the darkness of Satan is not the same as the darkness of night - despite the reference to light being separated into day and night in Genesis.  Genesis is in essence symbolic and as enlightening as Genesis is intended the symbolism can be demonstrated to be quite inaccurate in the various classical attempts to engage the symbolism empirically. 

 

One of the reasons symbolism is engaged in divine teachings is to enable the inspired student into continued application.  To avoid the idea of finding the meaning and thinking one is finish in understanding.  By the very nature of symbolism it is not a matter of solving an equation in mathematics but seeking and arriving at possibilities that are obtained symbolically.  

 

On this matter - what I find most interesting is in continual expanding thought and then in bringing expanded understanding full cycle by grounding such outreach with the obvious empirical crumbs (otherwise concealed) marking the path of truth.  But this last statement is itself symbolic and can only be understood by someone well grounded in and willing to put on the goggles of faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I am suggesting that the references to light associated with G-d is intended to be symbolic not empirical.  In the symbolic example of infrared light being seen by goggles - I would make the symbolic comparison to faith being symbolic to goggles as necessary to see light that cannot be seen by "natural eyes".  This is not intended to say that infrared light is divine light and that goggles are the same as having faith but to give symbolic example.

 

Likewise the darkness of Satan is not the same as the darkness of night - despite the reference to light being separated into day and night in Genesis.  Genesis is in essence symbolic and as enlightening as Genesis is intended the symbolism can be demonstrated to be quite inaccurate in the various classical attempts to engage the symbolism empirically. 

 

One of the reasons symbolism is engaged in divine teachings is to enable the inspired student into continued application.  To avoid the idea of finding the meaning and thinking one is finish in understanding.  By the very nature of symbolism it is not a matter of solving an equation in mathematics but seeking and arriving at possibilities that are obtained symbolically.  

 

On this matter - what I find most interesting is in continual expanding thought and then in bringing expanded understanding full cycle by grounding such outreach with the obvious empirical crumbs (otherwise concealed) marking the path of truth.  But this last statement is itself symbolic and can only be understood by someone well grounded in and willing to put on the goggles of faith.

Thanks, yes I get that.

 

I think what I was trying to convey was the idea that the symbolism had to use something that extends beyond itself without getting hung up on the thing that is delivering the extension.

 

If we were to use the metaphor of a telephone line, we wouldn't want to confuse the electrical impulses involved in sending the message converted to sound as the important center of power received.   I think we get hung up, in general (not you), that somehow light itself carries an intrinsic power where it is just symbolic of something that can eminate and be transmitted to something else beyond itself as is the power of God.  The metaphor is useful on many levels, of course, but one of which is the ability of light to eminate from one object and share its power with another body.  There are not many natural things that can do that and so light becomes the easy metaphor for the power of God but one could also, if these things were understood well enough back then, use gravity, electricity, radiation etc.

 

Some of the confusion about it is that light is also used as a metaphor for intelligence, it is a convenient metaphor but also a source of confusion when one doesn't know which aspect of the metaphor a particular phrase is using.  We would face similar problems if we used gravity as the metaphor, then a person might wonder, well does that mean God draws people in?  Or if we used radiation as a metaphor, well does that mean a person would burn up if they got too close to God?   Light, in my opinion, is one of those metaphors that comes with many overlaping meanings in the scriptures.  But like you are saying the first step in not becoming confused about any metaphor is to not take it as literal.  I agree with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, yes I get that.

 

I think what I was trying to convey was the idea that the symbolism had to use something that extends beyond itself without getting hung up on the thing that is delivering the extension.

 

If we were to use the metaphor of a telephone line, we wouldn't want to confuse the electrical impulses involved in sending the message converted to sound as the important center of power received.   I think we get hung up, in general (not you), that somehow light itself carries an intrinsic power where it is just symbolic of something that can eminate and be transmitted to something else beyond itself as is the power of God.  The metaphor is useful on many levels, of course, but one of which is the ability of light to eminate from one object and share its power with another body.  There are not many natural things that can do that and so light becomes the easy metaphor for the power of God but one could also, if these things were understood well enough back then, use gravity, electricity, radiation etc.

 

Some of the confusion about it is that light is also used as a metaphor for intelligence, it is a convenient metaphor but also a source of confusion when one doesn't know which aspect of the metaphor a particular phrase is using.  We would face similar problems if we used gravity as the metaphor, then a person might wonder, well does that mean God draws people in?  Or if we used radiation as a metaphor, well does that mean a person would burn up if they got too close to God?   Light, in my opinion, is one of those metaphors that comes with many overlaping meanings in the scriptures.  But like you are saying the first step in not becoming confused about any metaphor is to not take it as literal.  I agree with that. 

 

I have often thought of you as an intellectual yin to my yang.  I started that thread with intent that you might also see that connection - but it was never quite connected and I have wondered if that thought might not find fertile ground.  Perhaps some other day and time - perhaps this thread?

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've just become aware that the current edition of BYU Studies, (volume 53, number 4) has an article entitled Physical light and the light of Christ. The promotional material for the article is as follows:

 

Light is puzzling. For the last century, surprises have repeatedly upended older understandings of light. What is more, these surprises have, among scientists and nonscientists alike, triggered a great deal of philosophical and theological commentary. Physical light resonates metaphysical overtones, some of which may be considered theological or spiritual. Light travels at its characteristic speed only in a vacuum; when moving through air, its speed is reduced. Material bodies can slow, block, and even extinguish light, giving light a seemingly subordinate role in our material world. But special relativity's portrayal of light breaks the frame of mechanistic thought and thereby allows us to reconsider that in some ways physical light in indistinguishable from spiritual light, or the light of Christ. (I added the bolding)

 

I haven't read the article yet as I did not renew my subscription a few years ago but I note that an online copy can be purchased for $1 from https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=9465

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this point has been brought up, but light apparently does not experience time the way we do. If we could travel arbitrarily close to the speed of light, we could cover any distance in an arbitrarily short amount of time, in our own reference frame (not when viewed from other frames). This suggests that light, which of course travels at the speed of light, covers any and all distances instantaneously, in its own reference frame. For example, light from the sun's surface takes about 8 minutes 20 seconds to reach us, in our measurement of time. But in the individual photon's measurement, it takes zero time; the trip is instantaneous.

 

I don't know that this has anything to do with the religious connotation of light. Just found it interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something called an "Alcubierre drive," or a design for a spacecraft that could travel faster than light.  It supposedly works by creating a bubble that shrinks space of front of it and expands space behind it.  But I've also read that such as ship could never be steered or controlled, because the drivers would have no way to get a signal to the front of the bubble.  So you can't pick your destination, but you get there really fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this point has been brought up, but light apparently does not experience time the way we do. If we could travel arbitrarily close to the speed of light, we could cover any distance in an arbitrarily short amount of time, in our own reference frame (not when viewed from other frames). This suggests that light, which of course travels at the speed of light, covers any and all distances instantaneously, in its own reference frame. For example, light from the sun's surface takes about 8 minutes 20 seconds to reach us, in our measurement of time. But in the individual photon's measurement, it takes zero time; the trip is instantaneous.

 

I don't know that this has anything to do with the religious connotation of light. Just found it interesting.

 

I believe that God can also move through space whilst not moving through time - so if that is true, its interesting to see that God and light have yet another property in common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that God can also move through space whilst not moving through time - so if that is true, its interesting to see that God and light have yet another property in common.

 

In the case of light, note that time does indeed pass for those not traveling at the speed of light. Only the photon itself does not experience time. In that sense, the passage of time appears to be a property of matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share