Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; The Grammarian; Vernon; betty boop
Thank you so much for the ping!

Jeepers, I have sooo many objections to this article. You asked for specificity, so let me begin by saying that the author has subordinated God to the physical laws, in particular space/time and cause/effect. Science does not draw such limitations in the physical sense, so I find it very troubling that anyone would suggest such limitations on God in a spiritual sense.

The author said:

Time is also a natural attribute of God. God did not create time. Time is apart of God's eternal uncreated essence and make-up. Just like the other natural attributes, God cannot control the fact of it. He can not be outside of it nor separate Himself from it. He is time and nothing that He ever does will change this fact. Time, like God, has no beginning or end.

Time must be linear. Once God thinks a certain thought He cannot somehow go back in succession.

The author has not addressed relativity, superstrings, inflationary universe models or geometric physics. He sees time as an existent apart from God.

Has anyone here ever wondered why the term space/time is rarely broken into "space" v "time"? It’s because the two terms are interrelated. For an introduction with graphics: Postulates of Special Relativity and for more detail on this specific issue of transformation Lorentz Transformation

If Einstein’s Relativity (the geometry of space/time) were not true, we would not be able to do space exploration. The theory has held up repeatedly over these many years.

What all of this means in layspeak is that time is a dimension.

If you were to draw a line and try to describe a point on that line you would use a coordinate, a number x, relative to some point 0 on the line, e.g. –3, 4. If you were to draw another line perpendicular to that line, it would take two coordinates, an x for the first line and a y for the second.

Visualize the two lines laying on a plane, and draw another intersection line at a right angle and you’d need three coordinates. To describe a point is such an imaginary cube, you’d need x,y and z.

But our universe is moving, continually, so there is yet another coordinate for time, t.

Where anything is in the universe is specified by those four coordinates, x,y,z,t.

We must remember that the “world” we perceive is limited to three spatial dimensions and one of time. But there may indeed be many more spatial dimensions and there may also be extra time dimensions. These dimensions are expected to exist – just like Einstein’s space/time – because they mathematically resolve a multitude of observed phenomenon in the universe.

But the key question we ought to all be asking here is why our vision and our minds are limited to only four dimension? If there are many spatial and temporal dimensions, why this particular choice of coordinates?

This article, on the curse of dimensionality explains that if we could see in four dimensions we would be able to see the inside of a box without opening it. If our minds – our mental construct of reality – could deal with it, we could remove the content of the box.

IOW, we have been designed so that we can only “see darkly” even in a physical sense!

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity. – I Corinthians 13:9-13

Even in our blindness, we know that time is a dimension – and there may be many of them – so why would we choose to relegate God to any particular one of them? How would anyone choose which one He must exist in?

Not only that, but the one time dimension we actually can perceive with our vision and our mind is known to have a beginning. This is a mathematically unavoidable determination. Scientists no longer argue for a steady state universe, which they would prefer, because the fact of a beginning is a theological statement. It is after all the first words in the Scripture:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. – Genesis 1:1

This conclusion was startling to scientists, as Robert Jastrow remarked:

JASTROW: Oh yes, the metaphor there was that we know now that the universe had a beginning, and that all things that exist in this universe-life, planets, stars-can be traced back to that beginning, and it's a curiously theological result to come out of science. The image that I had in my mind as I wrote about this was a group of scientists and astronomers who are climbing up a range of mountain peaks and they come to the highest peak and the very top, and there they meet a band of theologians who have been sitting for centuries waiting for them.

What all of this means is that space/time is created as the universe expands. Inflationary Theory for beginners. Space/time does not pre-exist. Therefore God the Creator did not exist in space/time.

Finally, the author insists that time must be linear, that God must abide by the rules of cause and effect. Scientists truly would prefer that were the case, but there is no such requirement.

Specifically, if you were existing in an extra time dimension, time would be a plane not a line. It would explain how photons move faster than the speed of light (superluminal) which they do: Non-locality gets more real. The cause/effect relationship could be reversed to effect/cause. Past, present and future would be all equally accessible. Schrodinger’s cat would be both alive and dead (superposition) in the extra dimension though it would be only one or another by the choice of 4 coordinates (3 spatial, 1 time).

Moreover, if you could stretch your mind outside of space/time altogether (regardless of dimensions) here’s how things would look:

Tegmark: Parallel Universes

A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime--the bird perspective--these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta--a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.

To carry this metaphor a bit further, with God outside of space/time altogether (regardless of how many there may be) – He would see any of us like that strand of uncooked spaghetti. He sees our beginning and our end and the path that we are on. He can also change that – past, present or future. What He cannot do is lie because – being outside of space/time – once He has done a thing or said a thing it is over all of space/time.

IMHO, this is the mechanism of our free will. It’s not that we can accomplish anything as corporeal existents. It is the soul of man which God breathed into Adam (neshama) which makes us different from ordinary wildlife.

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. – Genesis 2:7

IOW, I perceive that it is the soul, or spirit, of the man communicating with God which gives us free will. betty boop has promised someday to write an essay for us on metaxy - a Plato philosophy. Knowing her and what I already know about Plato, I strongly suspect it will have something to do with this mechanism.

BTW, the Tegmark article is not at all theological. He is looking at multi-verse from a mathematician’s point of view in a materialistic science article. But the very nature of math is significant:

What is Mathematics?

The view [Platonism] as pointed out earlier is this: Mathematics exists. It transcends the human creative process, and is out there to be discovered. Pi as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is just as true and real here on Earth as it is on the other side of the galaxy. Hence the book's title Pi in the Sky. This is why it is thought that mathematics is the universal language of intelligent creatures everywhere....

Barrow goes on to discuss Platonic views in detail. The most interesting idea is what Platonist mathematics has to say about Artificial Intelligence (it does not think it is really possible). The final conclusion of Platonism is one of near mysticism. Barrow writes:

We began with a scientific image of the world that was held by many in opposition to a religious view built upon unverifiable beliefs and intuitions about the ultimate nature of things. But we have found that at the roots of the scientific image of the world lies a mathematical foundation that is itself ultimately religious. All our surest statements about the nature of the world are mathematical statements, yet we do not know what mathematics "is" ... and so we find that we have adapted a religion strikingly similar to many traditional faiths. Change "mathematics" to "God" and little else might seem to change. The problem of human contact with some spiritual realm, of timelessness, of our inability to capture all with language and symbol -- all have their counterparts in the quest for the nature of Platonic mathematics. (pg. 296-297)

Food for thought…

34 posted on 02/05/2004 11:20:46 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Alamo-Girl
Sigh... a late night error. The curse of dimensionality article statement should read five dimensions (four spatial, one temporal) as follows:

This article, on the curse of dimensionality explains that if we could see in five dimensions (four spatial, one temporal) we would be able to see the inside of a box without opening it. If our minds – our mental construct of reality – could deal with it, we could remove the content of the box.

36 posted on 02/05/2004 11:32:48 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: Alamo-Girl
Even in our blindness, we know that time is a dimension – and there may be many of them – so why would we choose to relegate God to any particular one of them? How would anyone choose which one He must exist in? Not only that, but the one time dimension we actually can perceive with our vision and our mind is known to have a beginning. This is a mathematically unavoidable determination. Scientists no longer argue for a steady state universe, which they would prefer, because the fact of a beginning is a theological statement. It is after all the first words in the Scripture:

Alamo-Girl, your reply #34 is simply outstanding! I have it bookmarked! I agree with you: There is absolutely no way for God to be in time, or constrained in any way to linear time, or any other concept of time.

I'm still working away at that metaxy piece. I've had a few distractions crop up, but I hope too finish it over the weekend. Working title: Cosmology, Ancient and Modern. Hope to post it soon!

Thank you so much for this outstanding essay!

41 posted on 02/06/2004 6:50:10 AM PST by betty boop (God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world. -- Paul Dirac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson