Posted on 03/15/2005 2:41:19 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
The paper refers to a "null path." What is that? Is it something moving in a pure "second time" direction? Would it be similar to, say, how the shadow from a body moving vertically in 3D, wouldn't necessarily move or change much in 2D?
In the 5D theory, dynamics of the higher (5th) dimension vacuum manifest matter/energy in the 4 dimension block we perceive from inside it.
Personally, I like to consider the consortium's 5D theory in conjunction with Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe. Tegmark's cosmology is the only closed multiverse - all the others propagate to prior universes, multi-worlds (the cat is both alive and dead) and prior geometry (brane theory).
Tegmark's theory is that everything in four dimensional space/time is a mathematical structure "beyond" space/time. Or conversely, mathematical structures in 5D manifest all of 4D (geometry, matter/energy etc.)
I think the concepts are similar. It is not 4D type particles moving about in a 5th dimension but a vacuum. IMHO, what one sees as mathematical structures (which are non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal), the other sees as dynamics of a vacuum (the geometry). To me, they are equivalent because I see mathematical structures as rooted in geometry.
Any hoot, something to think about...
Oh, it's a duzey, Alamo-Girl! Got it and read it. I thought this statement was simply fascinating:
"If we identify the orbit in the l/s plane with that of a particle, we have a realization of the old idea (often attributed to Wheeler and/or Feynmann) that instead of there being 1080 particles in the visible universe there is in fact only one which appears 1080 times."
That'll give us something to think about!
This 5D "two times" metric with signature [+(- - -)+] puts some flesh on the bones of our speculation about a fifth, "time-like" dimension. It is particularly interesting that Wesson says his work applies in both the induced-matter and membrane theory scenarios.
Thank you so much for steering me to this most interesting article!
Of course you have. If it isn't "objective", as per your assertion, then it must be "subjective." Either - or, as in the folowing:
the only possible source for "objective truth" and "absolute morality" is "beyond" space/time.
How do you know what the "only possible source" is unless you, yourself are omnipotent? This is an absolute statement that all knoweldge within space/time is non-absolute, thus this statement made within space/time is therefore non-absolute and contradicts itself.
You do not know, cannot know by the very definition of the term, that there is anything "beyond space/time" not withstanding your mystical experiences otherwise, since all your experiences take place within space/time.
we don't know what sound "is" from "beyond" space/time
This is non-sense, in the true sense (!) of the term. There is no "sound" outside or "beyond" space/time. You can give no evidence that there is. Sound is a perception, by definition. You can reify such concepts all you want, doesn't make it reasonable.
Max Tegmark, for instance, would suggest that sound is a mathematical structure "beyond" space/time which manifests "in" space/time - but we, from within space/time, cannot know that is the "objective truth" of the matter.
I suggest that Max sober up once in a while and look around him at reality. Just because somebody says something doesn't mean that it is reasonable argument, no matter who it is. Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
Just because he makes the same errors in logic that you do doesn't mean his arguments carry any more weight. Fact is, neither you nor he can produce any evidence that anything exists outside the realm of space/time - by definition.
By the way, sound is the result of dragons interbreeding with Unicorns. Prove me wrong.
The following makes more sense.
"Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent."
--Wittgenstein
Bye-bye, QM. Bye-bye relativity. Bye-bye Bell's inequality. Bye-bye the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Back to the drawing board.
Your presumption is that you must be right in your worldview and therefore whatever I or Max Tegmark say from a different worldview must comply or be deemed false by you.
My worldview cannot conform to yours nor would I ever wish it to, nor can I interpret it in terms of your worldview. Thus we have no foothold for further discussion.
The belief that there is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God. If “faith” is defined as “belief lying beyond proof”, both Christianity and atheism are faiths. While this suggestion might seem astonishing to some atheists, it is not only philosophically correct but also illuminating in shedding light on the changed fortunes of atheism in recent years. The strength of the atheistic feeling has been directly proportional to that of its religious antithesis: with the weakening of religious faith in many parts of the West, especially Western Europe, there has been a concomitant erosion in the attractiveness of its atheistic alternatives. In the Western European context at least, a swelling public indifference toward religion has led to the loss of the potency of both poles of religious culture, Christianity and atheism.
In recent years there has been a growing recognition of the ultimate circularity of the great atheist philosophies of recent centuries. The explanation of the idea of God put forward by Feuerbach, Marx, and Freud have one all-important feature in common: they presuppose atheism. It is the fundamental assumption that there is not—indeed there cannot be –a God that prompts them to offer explanations of why perfectly intelligent human beings should think that there is a God to believe in. As there is no God, the origins of this idea must lie in the malfunctioning of the mind, the subtle influence of the human unconscious, or the complex social forces that shape our beliefs and values, often without our being aware of them. Yet when all is said and done, these explanations of religious belief start out from atheist premises and duly arrive at atheist conclusions. They are, in their own way, coherent: they are not however, compelling. They simply offer an atheist explanation of religious belief, in much the same way as Christianity offers a theistic explanation of the same phenomenon. They explain the observation on the basis of a preconceived standpoint; they most emphatically do not establish that standpoint in the first place.
How can this be? God is simply not an empirical hypothesis that can be checked out by the scientific method. As Stephan J. Gould and others have insisted, the natural sciences are not capable of adjudicating negatively or positively, on the God question. It lies beyond their legitimate scope. There is simply no water tight means of arguing from observation of the world to the existence or non existence of God. This has not stopped people from doing so, as a casual survey of writings on both sides of the question indicates. But it does mean that the “arguments” are suggestive and nothing more. The grand idea that atheism is the only option for a thinking person has long since passed away, being displaced by the growing awareness of the limitations placed on human knowledge and the need for humility in religious and antireligious advocacy.
The Twilight of Atheism
The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World
by Alister McGrath p180-181
Oxford University, Oxford, England
Thank you so much for sharing that very interesting essay!
Hence the circularity of their arguments....
Thanks so much, ckilmer, for this illuminating extract from Alister McGrath!
No, you insist your worldview is the only right one.
I only ask how it is that you can be so sure you know what you "know" and how you know it. For which you have no answer.
I have "deemed" nothing false, (yet another Straw Man spurious charge against me) I just said I've yet to see any evidence.
As for my "worldview" - you don't know what it is, I have never revealed it.
As I have said I don't know how many times now:
Atheism would commit the Fallacy of Proving the Negative.
It is silly to define a position by saying what it is NOT.
As Stephan J. Gould and others have insisted, the natural sciences are not capable of adjudicating negatively or positively, on the God question.
Yes, precisely. And what I question is when someone tries to use the natural sciences, Quantum Theory in particular, to justify such a position "positively" - as in the case of asserting QM, The Uncertainty Principle, The Copenhagen Interpretation, Godel's Incompleteness Theorum justifies and supports Platonic Philosophical Realism. (That, after all was the subject and not the existence of God.)
There is simply no water tight means of arguing from observation of the world to the existence or non existence of God.
Then stop trying. I have never made any assertion about the existence of God, one way or the other. I only question the basis for assertions others have made, and on what basis, logically, they have made them.
IOW - stop putting assertions in my mouth that I haven't made.
The thread is a survey of Freeper views. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to the question raised by that thread. Everyone's participation is welcome.
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.