or Scalar Reality and Two Conceptions of the Trinity
Scalar RealityOur tendency is to think of things as either being or not-being, i.e., reality as binary, either on or off; but there was a time when reality was thought of as scalar. A scalar variable is one that can go from positive to negative infinity, whereas a binary variable either is or is not.
Whereas originally scalar reality might have been argued for by means of dust bunnies (you are more real than a dust bunny, obviously), since I don't find that argument compelling my argument for scalar reality is based on quantum mechanics.
In quantum mechanics, an unobserved object acts as a waveform, but, when observed, collapses into a particle form. The reason Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive, and neither dead nor alive, is that, until it is observed, the waveform for the inside of the box, including the cat, represents a probability of whether the cat is dead or alive, not a certainty. When one looks inside the box the waveform collapses into either the dead-cat particle form, or into the alive-cat particle form.
With most objects, if one looks and sees what it is, then looks away, and thus causes it to revert back to a waveform, then looks back at it, one would be surprised if it changed drastically as this idea seems to suggest. However, the waveform holds a probability of the object being in any given state. Suppose the probability of it being a potato is 99.99999999999%. Well, then almost every time one observes the object, it will be a potato. Suppose another object whose waveform has a 95% chance of collapsing into a potato. Which object is more of a potato? The first. Suppose it were collapsing into existent vs. non-existent rather than potato vs. non-potato. The first would then be more existent, and thus more real.
The TrinityThese are two conceptions of the Trinity, I do not hold to either one very tightly, nor am I certain that they are mutually exclusive (though they may be), and the second is more of a metaphor than a true explanation (better than the three leaf clover, though).
EdwardsianSuppose one has a thought of an unicorn. For that thought to be had, it must be, and therefore any thought has some form of existence. It does not seem to have a 100% chance of existing, however. If there were no horses, it is unlikely that one's concept of a unicorn would be the same as it is. However, one's idea of a horse is much clearer than one's idea of an unicorn, after seeing horses and interacting with some. The idea becomes more and more clear, and would appear to be an idea that is more there, more real. Thus, the more clear the idea, the more details one can think of concerning that idea, the more real the idea is.
Suppose God the Father, then, holds in his thought his idea of himself. Being God, this idea must be a perfect idea of himself, and therefore, be a real idea of himself. This idea must be so real as to stand forth as another being, the Word, the Son. God, then, having perfect love for himself, has perfect love for this being, and this love, too, will be so perfect as to stand forth as a third being, the Holy Spirit.
God being eternal, none of this implies that any of the members of the Godhead are not eternal. Both the idea and the love being perfect it does not imply that any are less God, nor that they are separate, i.e., three gods. They are all one person, yet they are distinct persons.