Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Because we know space/time is created as the universe expands - one can look at the physical realm (4 dimensions) in one of two ways: either energy/matter creates space/time or space/time expansion creates energy/matter.
I am not versed in the latest in cosmology, physics, string theory, quantum theory, etc, so I'll stick my neck out and argue from the practical and hope to learn something. Human beings became aware of time through change (events) in the other three dimensions. And then measured time as change in the other three dimensions. Time is relative and is defined by the change in the other three dimensions. Without change in the other three dimensions, there is no time.
In what way does an expanding universe create anything, other than a way for us to measure the four dimensions?
Most/many christians don't have a good view of God either until they have walked in Jesus' mocasins for awhile.. going from atheist to agnostic to believer can be a walk through a desert.. Depending on how hard headed you are.. The hard headed ones seem to be more mule than horse.. and horses more "spirited" than donkeys.. must be why Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and not a horse or mule.. Some earthy creatures need a 2x4 to get their attention..
Exactly.. It may be found that even our "vision" of dimensional reality is scewed.. and that the current 4D axiomatic paradigm(on dimensions) is primitive and hypothetically weighted with arrogant presuppostions with a shamanistic character.. And at least part of our scientific jujubag of bones and chicken feet is whisling past the cemetary..
Sorry.. you punched a button.. I'll take my meds.. and I'll be better after that...
IMHO Rand was a notably bad epistemologist. For demonstrably she was of the "man is the measure of all things" persuasion. (E.g., the Sophist persuasion that Socrates/Plato ever waged war against in order to defend and protect the truth of reality.)
No matter how useful her epistemology may appear to the concerns of science, it is a mistake to think that "man is the measure" -- which is the core of Randian philosophy. For the truth of reality preexists man's arrival in the world, and survives his passing away from it. How can man be the measure of that which effectively is the "measure" of him?
Quite aside from the problem of existential truth, Rand's epistemological conception precludes any firm foundation for moral truth. For that also preexists the arrival of any concrete individual, and survives him when he passes away.
Perhaps the hardest thing for a thoughtful person to confront in this world is the idea that he has no role, no choice whatever in coming into it, and nothing to say about his eventual passing out of it.
But of course, these are not "scientific questions."
But they are perenniel, universal questions that every generation of man born has struggled with. Which arguably is why human beings still need the total episteme, not just that subsection of it that we call science (which basically is all that Rand wanted to consider), if we are to grasp the unfolding (evolving) truth of reality in all its dimensions.
In short, pace b_sharp -- who notes that God "shrinks" as science "expands" (and seems quite pleased about this) -- truth either has a divine origin, or there cannot be any truth in the world. For it preexists the world, and from it the world takes its order.
And the world is "truthful." Aristotle thought it was thoroughly pervaded by truth, which is why the universe is accessible by reason, which is the necessary basis for intelligent human beings acquiring valid knowledge about it. If it had no truth, no reason, no logos; and if man did not himself possess reason (which he evidently does), then the world would be unknowable on principle; and science would have nothing to do.
Science is very practical in its approach. You are a scientist -- and I gather a very eminent one. Just don't forget that you are ever so much more than a scientist: You are a man....
Thank you so very much for writing, Physicist.
Perhaps I should clarify: i'm talking about the scientific method. Has this altered too? If you review the post that sparked your response, it is dealing with naturalism vs. the scientific method. It is not stated as such but if you had followed the conversation...
Tell that to Reimann, to Dirac -- or maybe even go back to Pythagoras, why don't you? -- and see what they have to say about that!
The tesselation on the wall of the Alhambra is a real system; group theory a formal system that gives a plausible description of it. The two are distinct: You conflate the two only at your peril.
blockquoted statements
are satisfactory.
Best regards...
I see, so culling the flock for the betterment of the flock is NOT GOOD.. i.e. culling out the sick and diseased..
I'm speaking spiritually here.. culling out spirits because of some spiritual disease or spiritual weakness.. On the otherhand you may not of thought this through thoughly.. or at all.. Proving my point.. Thanks you made this point clearer to me.. I appreciate it..
I see, so culling the flock for the betterment of the flock is NOT GOOD.. i.e. culling out the sick and diseased..I'm speaking spiritually here.. culling out spirits because of some spiritual disease or spiritual weakness.. On the otherhand you may not of thought this through thoughly.. or at all.. Proving my point.. Thanks you made this point clearer to me.. I appreciate it..
I'm not sure what point you're referring to since I was addressing Snowbelt Man.
But now that you mention it, what is the origin of these diseased spirits of which you speak? Is the maker really that incompetent?
And you might want to consider addressing the disproportion between the finite and the infinite that I mention, rather than passing over it in silence.
No. I'm pretty sure that generalization requires inference unless you have all of something. But, of course, the discussion is about inference, a design inference.
Would there be a God if there were no people?
Anybody know what the signing Chimps and Gorillas have to say about a God?
Axiomatic placemarker
I'd have to review all my posts..but I believe my point was that science (mathematics) does allow for the supernatural , Some true theorems can never be proven true and scientists now call these Supernatural Theorems. I believe I was initially responding to Naturalism versus Science. Godel's proof is only one modern result showing the limitations of science. Many scientists believed any problem could, in principle, be solved by computers. They believed that given enough time a powerful computer could solve any problem Alan Turing used this idea of self-reference to solve the Halting Problem. Remember how this showed there are interesting questions that have definite answers (simple yes or no) but whose answers are forever unsolvable (uncomputable)
There have been many similar results which have changed our idea of what is knowable by finite means. They have changed our concept of knowledge and on our vision of science. Anotherwords, they eliminate the notion that everything , in principle, may be known by the scientific method.
So my point being that many scientists feel science can only study the natural and can never hope to determine anything about the supernatural, the natural and supernatural spheres being separate and unbreachable. So Godel proved the existence of unprovable truths. So, it could be possible for scientists to prove the existence of causes and effects that they are unable to study directly (supernatural agents).
Time became important to humans when they saw stuff DIE.. And being human wondered how long would they live.. Voila!.. Time became important.. studied, measured, words(language) was made up for gradations of it, even cultural habits were made to use it more fully.. Eternal beings care little about time.. Timing is what they are interested in.. All past and future is made up of moments.. Whether eternal or mortal your time is made of moments.. Did I time this post right.?.. Handle the moments correctly and the past and future will take care of themselves..
Time became important to humans when they saw stuff DIE..
And when they made the connection between being hungry and eating. As in I better find something to eat before I get hungry because eating now prevents me from being hungry later. There are many more such examples.
A "spirit" must be tested so that spirit can see for itself that it don't qualify for some spiritual "jobs" for the future.. Qualifying of spirits is why humans were born.. Why YOU were born.. Theres much work in the future to do.. Only qualified spirits will be used for that.. What does this have to do with the present conversation.?... EVERYTHING..
What am I a prophet.?.. Yeah..
My word, what a charming fellow you are!
I really wanted to get in touch with Professor; but can't find his post on the subject I wish to reply to. So I'll do it here if you don't mind, since you referenced it in your last to me.
RWP questioned my dates regarding the inception of "God knowledge" in the human race. I said indications of such were to be found at Lascaux, France, which date back some 39 millennia. He disputed this. So I did a little more research into the question, and found a great disparity of dates have been applied to this settlement, regarded as paleolithic on the timescale. Expert opinion on the matter seems to differ widely: The earliest date I found was 37,000 B.C.; the latest, 13,000 B.C. Wikipedia puts it as early as 25,000 B.C.
What is a layman to do, regarding such conflicting testimonies? Answer: Find some consensus among the experts -- the cultural anthropologists -- who, though they might differ over dates, agree about what Lascaux may signify.
What is evident therefrom is that Lascaux is considered as evidence of the transition from homo erectus to homo sapiens. The consensus view holds that the cave paintings -- and the way the layout of the cave itself was exploited -- strongly suggests a ceremonial and sacred purpose was being served there by these earliest of "modern" men.
So I say to myself, hmmmmmmmm: Homo sapiens plus sacred activities seem to be in close correlation. Which to my way of thinking strengthens my original argument that man has "always" known about God, from the very earliest of times of human rational activity that we can document.
In my earlier post to RWP, I even went so far as to suggest that man was "programmed" with knowledge of God. This, of course, is a highly controversial point of view. Yet if evidence of human conceptualizations of the sacred can be dated to the emergence of homo sapiens, then I think my argument might well have some substance to it. Maybe that is the principle distinguishing "difference" between homo erectus and homo sapiens.
And it seems this eventuality is also closely correlated with the emergence of human self-consciousness: For one of the great paintings at Lascaux is a figure of a dead human being. This suggests to me that the artist(s) was fully aware of his own mortality.
Do you suppose that animals have such awareness? Or homo erectus, for that matter?
FWIW.
Thanks for writing, aNYCguy!
I don't think the existence of a strong PRNG is enough. That gives unpredictability; what seems to be needed is a computation that gives the QM correlations. I actually did write a program (on 2 8x5 cards, about the size or a napkin) that duplicated Aspect's results for any fixed setting of his polarizer. However, I think it's impossible to reproduce such QM systems for every angle setting. Similarly, for Physicist's example.
A "spirit" must be tested so that spirit can see for itself that it don't qualify for some spiritual "jobs" for the future.. Qualifying of spirits is why humans were born.. Why YOU were born.. Theres much work in the future to do.. Only qualified spirits will be used for that.. What does this have to do with the present conversation.?... EVERYTHING..What am I a prophet.?.. Yeah..
Do you have not even an ounce of respect anywhere in your body for the idea of evidence? You're telling a fairy story as if it were settled fact, but there's just no evidence for it. And even if it were true, how could you possibly know that it's true?
Wake up...hone your critical faculties a bit...ask for a little evidence before you commit yourself to believing something...
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.