Why oh why do I harp on the physics? The “laws of nature”? The mathematical foundations? I mean, it is clear from my recent left-boot of fellowship by the queens of Wartburg Watch–straight into the catatonic-closet of comment moderation–that not even those who claim to have it really care about TRUTH.
Oh…no, no, no. Let’s not kid ourselves. The Christians are the WORST offenders of all. For they ironically reject TRUTH in the name of what IS actually TRUE.
Somewhere, up there, the Right Hand of God is slapping His forehead. Once, twice, again, again…in time with the relentless proclamations of impossibly contradictory ideas, flaccid premises, irrational metaphysics, relative moral definitions, utterly blurred existential lines between God and what is NOT God, the ruination of man and life and peace and love by Platonist science, and the appointing of mystic overlords as HIMSELF, standing in the stead. Man is, quite contrary to God’s Will (which is a RATIONAL Will), replacing and summarily executing himself by the VERY ABSTRACTIONS he was born with in order to LIVE.
Yes…I hear a slap to the forehead of God right now.
In the words of one Christian I know, “Who cares?”
Ah…yes. Indeed. Trifling matters. Piffle. Pap. Wholly necessary to the priceless and completely NON-redundant work (sarcasm alert) of proclaiming the gospel to the already-before-they-were-born-saved; and hellfire and brimstone to those unfortunate souls who fall just outside of John Calvin’s “limited atonement”.
Well…I don’t know precisely who cares. But what I do know is that the importance of an issue is not necessarily defined by the number of people who “care”. The number of Calvinist leaders who do not seem to care that certain para-church ministries have apparently been covering up the sexual abuse of children for the sake of “sound doctrine” seems to rise quite high. Are we then to concede that this issue–the issue of the perverted larceny of innocence of those whom the Lord warned terrifyingly against causing to sin–is not worthy of pursuit?
I suspect anyone with a modicum of interest in truth, that’s who. For if we cannot even get the BASIC existential ideas right and logical and rational and consistent…then we are doing something seriously wrong here. And we–Christians, atheists, scientists, philosophers of any stripe–have no business preaching MORALITY OR IDEAS TO ANYONE. We can’t even get EXISTENCE right. Who are WE to lecture ANYONE about God.
How dare we approach other human beings with God or Math or Philosophy, or any moral or intellectual or artistic pursuit while walking in the fumes of farce and positively reeking of such preposterous ignorance. I’d just as soon get my fortune read by a stray cat.
Now…on to my post, and my open challenge.
To scientists and philosophers and mathematicians everywhere:
I am laughing at the “superior” intellect.
EVERYTHING is a function of “time”. Everything is a function of “space”. Of course, this has serious implications in that it does not allow for any real rational understanding of metaphysics and the true nature of just what it means to exist.
It is hard to get people to understand this…it is so difficult for people to undo a lifetime of “observing” the “passage of time”. That, plus it is built into the premises which guide every “law” of nature.
The problem is that explaining that transferring the abstraction of time into an “actual” entity amounts to a complete contradiction of the notion of time. This is something I have found that not even physicists can (or will) grasp. That isn’t to sound arrogant, it is just the way some people’s minds are wired. I’m “different”, and so it is something akin to “nature” for me to look at things beyond the assumptions.
I like to say this in regards to space and time:
If time is real, then by definition it must be infinite, because “time” cannot have a “beginning” or and “end” because that would imply that it is derivative of something NOT time. But time, by definition cannot both BE time and be a FUNCTION of something NOT time. For time is time PRECISELY because it continues to MOVE infinitely. If we concede it has an end (or beginning), then time by definition is static; and static time is NOT time because it does NOT move.
You see, the timeline doesn’t move in this scenario…and this must mean that the timeline itself is NOT a function of time. But if it isn’t a function of time, because it is static, then how can you ever give an object at a certain “location” on the timeline a value? For the timeline’s location itself, as we have said, is not a function of time–is not a function of “when”–and thus, without this reference, any location of any object on the timeline can also only be said to be “NO-WHEN”, because the reference for its location, the timeline, has NO TIME. And NO-WHEN cannot have any rational value at all.
Again, since it doesn’t move, the timeline is static…so then the only “value” you can give an object on a timeline that is static is ZERO, because you can never by definition know WHEN an object can exist on the timeline because the timeline itself is is NOT a function of time. The reference for “time”, the timeline itself, has NO time. Thus, zero time can be the only logical value for any object on it.
But if we concede that time is constantly moving; that the timeline IS time itself, then the timeline is infinite. But if the timeline is infinite then how can you ever give a value to a thing on the timeline? For any “part” of an infinite thing is INFINITE. You cannot ever ascribe a FINITE value to an INFINITE thing. Once again, then, the only practical value for an object on the timeline, the timeline having an infinite (UNDEFINED) reference value, is UNDEFINED. And what this amounts to, practically speaking, is ZERO.
Now, let’s transition into space from time.
Let’s say time is created, then it has a beginning…be it by God or the big bang, or Stephen Hawkings Nobel prize, or Carl Sagan’s nostrils.
Okay. When? Where? For if “when” cannot exist until time is created, then what is frame of reference for beginning your “counting” of time. If the beginning of time then is ZERO, then how do you add ANY VALUE of a thing if the thing’s INITIAL, CAUSAL value is ZERO? Time has a beginning that is by definition NOTHING. And you cannot get something from nothing.
BUT NOW, the same must then be true for space. If time does not have a “when” to its beginning, by definition, then it cannot possibly have a WHERE. Since when is “when” and “where” separable for anything at all?
If space has a beginning, then it must be conceded that it is a function of something NOT space. And if this is true, then space itself is, by definition, is in NO space, or is NOWHERE. But if space itself is nowhere, then how can you establish a frame of reference for any object “in” space? The only logical conclusion is that the location of a thing referenced to NOWHERE must also be NOWHERE. So the “space” of an object is ZERO, by logical extension.
But if we argue that space is INFINITE, then…yes, you can see where this is going. How do you have a value for an object in infinite space? You cannot give a value of “space” that is anything other than infinite, because you cannot have a FINITE value of an INFINITE thing…just as is true for time.
The ONLY constant, then, in the universes is the object, the SELF. Objects which are SELF are the only things that exist which are NOT mere abstractions. Everything, including space time can only be given a real value if it is derivative of the things which are ACTUAL.
Time and space are illusions of reality; they are NOT reality itself. Theoretical abstractions. As are “laws” which “govern” nature, and the “language” of the heavens: mathematics.
Are they not?
Abstractions. Figments of man’s unique cognitive abilities.
I demand an answer to my assertions that spacetime only exists in man’s mind. That what we might “observe” as space or “feel” as time do not, in fact, exist to be felt or observed at all. I will no longer reject reason in favor of abstract-oriented reality.
As I said…
I am laughing at the “superior” intellect.
6 thoughts on “I Am Laughing at the Superior Intellect: An open challenge to the claim that Time and Space exist beyond the theoretical”
While I might not be able to fully comprehend where this is going, I can tell you I am reading a very interesting book right now that fits in with this whole conversation about where man fits in.
The book is about the Enlightenment…tracking it’s roots and outcomes. Of course it was not an event/movement like the Reformation or Renaissance so it is harder to track. But the book sort of follows along the lines the things John Immel was speaking of at the Tanc conference.
The book is: The Enlightenment and Why It Matters. By Anthony Pagden.
I do wonder if what you guys are talking about fits in at all with the concept of natural law? I remember first hearing about this as a controversial issue concerning “law” during the Justice Thomas confirmation hearings. I did some reading then and could not figure out why so many liberals had a problem with it.
“Again, since it doesn’t move, the timeline is static…so then the only ‘value’ you can give an object on a timeline that is static is ZERO, because you can never by definition know WHEN an object can exist on the timeline because the timeline itself is is NOT a function of time.”
My attempt to put that in English results in: “The only time that really exists is the present. The past is gone and the future does not yet exist.” I don’t know if I captured what you’re trying to say there or not.
“Time” in the sense we think of it has a beginning, the creation, and an end, the end of this planet. But “time” to God is infinite. So we are dealing with two sets of “time.” This is the only sense in which I will allow that God “exists outside of time” — his timeline is longer, even infinite. But that doesn’t mean he sees everything, past, present, and future as present, as the sophists allege. Saying that time “is not real” I think could result in bolstering the claims of the sophists who believe God exists in a kind of timeless moment in which he sees all time at once. I don’t like that. Time to me is “Real” but only real as an abstract idea is real. Love is real, but it isn’t a physical existence. Anger is real, but also not a physical existence. So, time is real, but it doesn’t really exist. The only time that exists is now, and the past is past (hence the name), and the future hasn’t happened yet and so cannot be exhaustively known.
As for space, it is the very definition of non-existence. When nothing exists, what do you have? Empty space.
Liberals are against everything natural, except marijuana. I couldn’t resist saying that. I’m sorry.
Hmmm…Lydia, I am not sure what you are referring to regarding Thomas’s confirmation hearings. Can you elaborate?
Well…that book sounds right up my alley. No shock that I’m a big fan of enlightenment thinkers. Too bad there aren’t more modern equivalents!
I understand the topic is tedious…I am trying to establish a framework for understanding the difference between existential abstractions and existential realities. For instance, YOU, Lydia, are REAL…light bounces off you, you have gravity (as do all objects with mass), mass is felt when someone pats you on the back…if you stumble to the ground, the mass of the earth reacts by holding fast. But your “space” and your “time” are NOT real…they are abstractions used to explain your MOVEMENT relative to EVERYTHING around you.
It is hard work, getting this. But if we can’t draw the line between what are abstractions of a self aware consciousness used to organize environment and what are the actual OBJECTS which actually exist in locations RELATIVE to you, then we an never truly understand truth. We can never really understand how we relate to our God, or to others, and how it is all possible.
The fact is, unless we get this right, we cannot ever dismantle the deterministic philosophies which devour real faith. If we concede that time (and space) is what we are beholden to as human beings, then free will is impossible to establish.
Thanks for that comment! See my new post! I respond there.
“It is hard work, getting this. But if we can’t draw the line between what are abstractions of a self aware consciousness used to organize environment and what are the actual OBJECTS which actually exist in locations RELATIVE to you, then we an never truly understand truth”
I know this one is way off the reservation but thinking of the above and how we have discussed the spiritual and physical is all the same (brain, etc) what do you do with death? What about us “lives” after death? (Calvinist Russ Moore says we should not cremate ourselves because of our resurrected bodies. Too bad for the believers who went to gas chambers or died in flaming towers of 911.