Posted on 09/02/2010 2:40:29 PM PDT by WhatNot
You say "likely." Okay. How do you know this? How do you verify that these trillions of other universes with properties radically different than our own are really "out there?" It seems from the anthropocentric point of view they may be undetectable in principle since they are not direct observables. So far at least.
The other thing to mention is that the only thinking we know of or are capable of doing is relentlessly "anthropocentric." It has to be that way, because the only minds we know of in the natural world capable of reasoning, and of communicating their reasonings, their knowledge, in language, are human minds. All human knowledge is unavoidably "anthropocentric" in this way.
People who say that human minds and their propensities — subjectivity — must be removed from science, so as to produce "objective" science untroubled by anthropocentrism are deluding themselves. Science itself is relentlessly anthropocentric. JMHO FWIW.
If there are non-human minds out there, arising on one of the allegedly trillions of other universes with properties radically different than our own, would their minds be sufficiently enough like our own to make communication possible? And if so, in what language?
It is said that mathematics is the universal natural language. So the SETI people are beaming mathematical messages out into deep space, hoping for an intelligible reply from a denizen of such a radically different system sooner or later — a reply expected to be couched in the language of mathematics.
But if the systems are radically different, then how can we simply assume that such systems evolve life and minds such as we know them, which speak a common language? — which seems fundamental to the question of whether or not we can communicate with them.
Just a bunch of questions.... The more I know, the more I realize how much I do not know....
Thanks for writing, Republican Extremist!
Well, they translated Exodus 3:14 the way the other translations correctly did, 'I Am that I Am'.
You confused a verb (to be) in Exodus 3:14 for the noun (Jehovah) in Exodus 6:3.
Well they — Steinhardt, Hawking, and a raft of others — can't explain the origin of anything — not time, not space, not physical causation — absent an ex nihilo beginning. But they do not want a beginning, especially an ex nihilo one. For such a beginning would be inconceivable to a person of physicalist/materialist persuasion. They will stand on their heads; they will turn themselves inside-out. They will do anything to deny the existence of God. WHY this is so important to them, I do not know.
Whatever the case, theoretical physicists of such high order and reputation as Hawking and Steinhardt are mathematical physicists. And as any "math geek" knows, when one's equations are generating a situation known as infinite regression, the alarm bells should be going off all over the place. This is the classical sign that there's something wrong with your formulation. Time to go back and check, to find the error....
Mad Dawg's most excellent Post #1247 is definitely on-point here.
Thank you oh so very much for your totally outstanding essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!
This thing, being changeless in every respect implies timelessness. We cannot say "the UM WILL change such and such tomorrow," because that would be a change in the UM's actualizing function. We cannot say "the UM will behold the effect of its actualizing tomorrow and saw other effects yesterday," because such perceptions are also changes. It 'simply' (word of unspeakable power!) beholds and does everything and always.
"My Father is working still."
Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
He’s wrong.
Planck time is the smallest "increment" of time the human mind can conceive. It is a measure of time, not time itself.
These theorists are saying before there was time, there was time. How can time be before time became? The Standard Model says there was a beginning of space and time. And that model seems to be holding up pretty well. Yet theorists such as Hawking, Steinhardt, Borde, and Vilenkin insist time doesn't begin; space doesn't begin: They just always were. And the physical universe, by the same rule, is eternal — it just goes on forever.
But if the universe is eternal, then how did it develop its laws? You don't get lawful behavior out of an infinite regression, back to a beginning that never was....
Such an approach obviates the two greatest scientific/philosophical questions man can ask: Why are things the way they are, and not some other way? And why is there anything at all, why not nothing?
Thank you so very much for writing Texas Songwriter, and for your kind words of support!
...or screaming, for that matter...
But you last question, the question of G.W.F.Leibniz, should be pondered by every person who asks these questions. Leibniz was a 17th century mathematician and philospher who asked, "If there is no God, then why is there anything at all?" He did not have the advantage of the Einsteins contribution, nor Eddington, nor Hubble, nor Wilson and Penzias, nor COBE, nor WMAP, nor much of the other empirical findings that scientifically support the truth of a beginning. He propagated the Principle of Sufficient Reason. He reasoned that nothing happened without sufficient reason......a permutation of the Law of Causality. Everything in the universe is contingent, and thus one must look beyond the universe for that sufficient cause. That sufficient Cause is God whose existence is only explained by reference to Him. That is to say God is a metaphysically necessary Being.
These are not easy topics but if one is interested in truth one must first admit metaphysical truth (as opposed to the physicalist, atheist, materialist) such as God, the soul, sentience, mental processes, abstract ideas, all which must be denied by the materialist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.