Replies

And so we think we can simply designate an artificial time construct -- such as a second, or a minute, or a "now" -- and hope to capture a miracle, as if in a butterfly net?

I'm going to indulge in a little philosophical speculation here, which I am loathe to do in my debates with the Materialists and, in particular, the Evolutionists. The heavy irony of this is that Materialism itself is a philosophy that infuses the believers' thinking with that bias. The beauty, if you will, of Lynds' paper is that it gives us a new but not shallow view of some very old "problems". My take would be that only our understanding of reality involves seeming paradox. Reality itself is seamless and "paradox" is a tipoff that we don't understand something.

With this in mind, I believe that one of the best philosophical questions is "Why is there something and not nothing?". Its scientific counterpart might be "Why is there motion and not stillness?". Physicality is real enough. But without motion at all levels, would it "disappear"? I believe that it would. From whence comes the energy that powers the motion of the electron, alway perfectly regulated? The Materialists would say "It just is". Is that an answer?

I think we're missing something that is very, very fundamental.

Thank you so very much for your excellent post!

Reality itself is seamless and "paradox" is a tipoff that we don't understand something.

Absolutely! Great point.

With this in mind, I believe that one of the best philosophical questions is "Why is there something and not nothing?". Its scientific counterpart might be "Why is there motion and not stillness?". Physicality is real enough. But without motion at all levels, would it "disappear"? I believe that it would. From whence comes the energy that powers the motion of the electron, alway perfectly regulated? The Materialists would say "It just is". Is that an answer?

In the mindset of Aristotle, Hawking et al, that is the answer, 'nuff said etc.

But to those of us of the Plato mindset, Penrose et al, it is not finished until it also makes sense.

So to those of us in the second group, "Why is there something and not nothing?" is a most significant question. Penrose indicates that most mathematicians are at least weak Platonists, so let us keep asking that question and perhaps target it to the math centered disciplines.

But without motion at all levels, would it "disappear"? I believe that it would.

That reminds me of my statement to physicist which he did not understand. I stated - If something(anything) moves, everything moves.

Reality itself is seamless and "paradox" is a tipoff that we don't understand something.

Add my endorsement to A-G's here, Phaedrus: So beautifully stated! You also wrote: "I think we're missing something that is very, very fundamental." So do I. Thanks so much for this elegant post.