Category Archives: Metaphysics of Time

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravity Waves; Reason Does Not (Part 3)

Metaphysics, Metaphysics of Time, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, reason, scientific determinism, Space, Time and Space, , , ,

“Gravitational Waves are ‘ripples’ in space–time…”

“‘Waves’ of changing space–time would propagatein all directions away from the source like waves inwater caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

Referencing back to part two of this article series, the logical fallacy discussed there relative to space and time is what science commits when it clams that “gravity waves are fluctuations in spacetime”: space and time manifest volume and temporality to themselves; they act relative to themselves, which is redundant and contradictory. Space and time are objectified as distinct, not fundamental (i.e. the context for the relative existence of physical reality-that is, physical objects), and then subsequently asserted to act as distinct objects relative to themselves. By both presuming a fundamentality and irreducibility to spacetime and obejctifying spacetime as a distinct object which interacts as a material object with other objects in the physical universe by being displaced in waves as a consequence of certain massive object interaction, science reveals its ignorance of the difference between metaphysics and physics, and pretends that they are one and the same, and that the metaphysical manifests as the physical, and vice versa. Which constitutes an outright embarrassing intellectual error on the part of those (physicists and mathematicians) who are widely considered to be the brightest minds humanity has to offer. This is not surprising, as the scientific community at best pays lip service to metaphyscis, and when it does it is usually in the form of some scientist who happens to be an adherent of some organized religion who is espousing scientific phenomenon as mrerely proclaiming the wonders of the Divine. In other words, proclaiming that science constitutes a validation of the mystical. And that’s not actually dealing with the metaphysics so much as punting them into the cosmic abyss of “God’s mystery”…which is it’s own brand of codswallop that we won’t be dealing with here.

Here’s the problem: Space and time simply cannot be relative to the physical universe without fundamentally nullifying their very nature through redundancy and self-nullifying contradiction. Space (we will deal specifically with space here), once objectified, becomes a distinct entity itself—the vacuum, in reality, the absence of existence (that is, the absence of that which IS, is really a metaphysical context in which the relative relationships of those things which do exist becomes possible), becomes physical…it becomes not the absence of that which IS but something which IS, physically, itself. This being the case, space must have its own location, a location which is now relative to other objects which physically exist. In other words, space must now occupy space. And thus by occupying space may thus be displaced as “waves of gravity”.

But if space is actually what is implied and outright proclaimed by science and all rational and conventional defintions…that is, if space is indeed a vacuum—is the absence of that which exists—and thus does not and cannot occupy space, then it is, ipso facto, fundamental. For nothingness, by definition, is by nature infinite. But the infintity of the metaphysical is of course not directly (or, perhaps better said, not physically) compatible with the finity of the physical. Space, being the vacuum, and not a thing itself, thus exists nowhere. Thus, it cannot be displaced in waves, for there is literally nowhere for it to go. Waves by definition indicate a displacement of the medium which is “waving”, therefore, there can be no waves in a medium which cannot by its nature be displaced.

END part 3

The God, Math: The religious dogma of science revealed through the “expanding universe” (Part TWO)

collectivist metaphysics, Determinism, Metaphysics, Metaphysics of Time, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, scientific determinism, Space, , , , , , ,

The Wikipedia article on the expanding universe, cited in part one of this article series, does not acknowledge the necessity of the observer to Reality, particularly with respect to movement, and ignores the distinction between movement qua movement and relative movement. Instead it appeals to the artifice of the metric tensor to explain how the universe does not actually expand, and that space and objects in space do not actually move, and yet it kinda does and they kinda do. I submit that science has become, in some fundamental way, the pseudo-philosophical, and albeit implied, art of rejecting the observer as entirely superfluous to Reality, Existence, and thus by extension, Truth and Ethics. But instead of simply admitting that science has no frame of reference for describing (the fundamental nature of) the observer, and thus conceding that he should be left to other schools of thought and other methodologies for his description, science functionally declares his “objective” non-existence as observer-qua-observer (or, better stated, his “ultimately non-efficacious existence”) an empirical fact, and this  because the observer is scientifically revealed to be so.

I am not entirely certain why science promotes this folderol…a focused and overt dissertation on the subject has never been submitted. Nevertheless, what is overt, and painfully obvious, is that science has no rationally consistent methodology for describing and explaining the observer. The observer lies completely beyond the scope of science, and for some reason this is unacceptable to the scientific community. Is it arrogance? Bullish pride? Who knows…but by rejecting the observer as purely ephemeral at best, it attempts to rectify the inrinsic contradictions this rejection of the observer necessitates…for example, that the universe is not expanding, and space and objects in space do not actually move, except that it kinda is and they kinda do. And the metric tensor is a perfect example of an artifice used to reconcile the contradiction.

“Technically, neither space nor objects in space move. Instead it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that changes in scale.”  [Bold print added for emphasis]

A few problems with this…I will attempt to plot the inconsistencies as clearly and succinctly as possible.

Earlier, I stated that the claims that “neither space nor objects in space move”, and “the universe does not expand into anything, and does not require space to exist outside of it” are correct. However, it is important that I qualify my agreement as being in some way quite superficial; that is, my agreement terminates once a deeper examination of these claims in the context of the full Wikipedia quote commences (see the beginning of part one for the full quote). And unfortunately, the examination needs only be cursory.

While it is true that objects “in space” do not move, the article, as I have mentioned, fails to qualify the meaning of the word “move”. That is, it does not make the important distinction between movement qua movement, which certainly does not exist, because this is impossible in a vacuum, and relative movement, which certainly does. In a vacuum, object A, alone, does not move, because there is and can be no relevant, measurable, definable distinction between, say, A at position X and A at position Y. A is simply “in” the vacuum…there is no “where” then to its existence except itself, as it were. It just exists. It is A qua A. But if we add object B to the vacuum, then there is no longer the existence of A qua A, but also the relative existence of A to B. And now there can be a relevant, measurable, and definable distinction between A’s position at X and its position at Y—as relative to B. In this context then, A does in fact move, it’s simply that the movement is relative, not absolute. And the converse of this is also true—that B may move relative to A. Of course, it is the necessary role of the observer to determine which object, A or B, is to be the reference for the relative movement between the two. Is A revolving around B, for example, or is B revolving around A? That question can only be answered by the observer, because only the Self is constant.

Moving on.

While it is rightly stated that the universe does not expand into anything, it should, for clarity and veracity’s sake, be stated that, this being the case, the universe does not actually expand at all. Space, and its corollary, time, being non-existent outside of the universe, along with anything else, means that the universe simply exists relative to itself, so to speak…or in other words, non-relatively. Meaning that the universe simply “is what it is”. In actuality, “the universe” is simply a label we give to the sum and substance of Reality. The universe, thus,  is not a thing, so to speak, but an abstraction, and as such it holds no deeper meaning nor significance than as an abstract context for Reality. The expansion of the universe then is simply a way of describing a particular form of relative movement between certain objects man observes in his environment.

*

“It is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that actually changes in scale.”

Spacetime is an interesting concept, or phenomenon, you could say, I suppose, as it is presented to us by science. It is referred to in physics as being a “coordinate system”. But here in the Wikipedia article we see an implied distinction between the coordinate system, or the metric tensor, and spacetime.

So which is it? Is spacetime a coordinate system, or is the coordinate system distinct? Well, due to the intrinsic rational inconsistencies with the scientific conceptual perspective of spacetime, and being familiar with science’s penchant for excusing these inconsistencies by appealing to contradiction and then pretending that the contradiction is understood and appreciated by the “enlightened” few—that is, the mathematically and scientifically gifted, who today, ironically, comprise our postmodern priest class—I would say that  science most likely considers it both and neither.

Not that it matters to us really, for it is clear to the rational observer, who resists the scientific community’s determination to exceed the scope of its mathematical boundaries, that spacetime is purely a conceptual placeholder. That is, neither space nor time actually exist. The abstractions of “space” and “time” may be rendered as a mathematical coordinate system, but these are not object or empirical themselves—spacetime is not a thing to either be a coordinate system or revealed as or translated into a coordinate system. It is instead a product of man’s conceptualizing powers—a means by which man cognitively organizes certain objects in his environment.

Space is not a thing itself, it is by definition and by rational necessity the absence of things; you cannot have holes in space (e.g “worm holes”), for space is the hole. And objects do not exist in space…they simply exist. The whole point of space, the vacuum, is that it is not. And objects cannot exist in that which does not exist. And time, being a continuum, is likewise a conceptual abstraction—a product of man’s mind; a product of the conscious observer. Time is and must necessarily be a continuum, for time can have no beginning or end, it is the beginning and the end. Time can have no future or past or present, it is the future, past, and present. Time, in other words, is an infinitely linear conceptual construct which is divided into mutually exclusive units of past, present, and future, which are qualified and quantified for practical application. Spacetime, then, at its fundamental root is the abstract conceptual environment in which all empirical/material objects are said to exist at the irreducible physical level. Nothing more. The metric tensor, or the coordinate system, which physics declares the corollary existential, even ontic I would argue, manifestation of spacetime, is simply another abstract quantification of it.

Naturally science disagrees with this…the metric is no mere abstraction, you see, but a god of sorts. It has causality, and its causality is authoritative; and being mathematical and thus predictable, is determinative; and being determinative is absolute—omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Do not take the assertion that the metric “governs” the size and geometry of spacetime as some unimportant thing, its deeper implications to be glossed over as unimportant or pat. The metric governs—it commands, it controls. It acts and the universe inexorably follows suit. It declares what is to be done and the universe obeys. The universe does not itself expand, and objects and spacetime do not move, and yet the metric changes in scale, and so it does and so they do. They do not, and yet through the mysterious omnipotence of the math, they do. The contradiction, though a contradiction, is nevertheless true, and is a testament to the power of god. He who has ears, let him hear. The power of god is wiser than man…man cannot comprehend it. For man’s reason has no frame of reference, no means of apprehending or processing an IS which is simultaneously and IS NOT. Man, the priests of science declare, must accept such truths on faith alone. Math is god; and he doesn’t need your acceding or your concession to validate his truth.

The universe is merely an extension of god, who created all things ex nihilo…from nothing. And god is the metric tensor; the math. The math is infinite…changing into itself; expanding into its own infinity. So the numbers change, but they don’t, because the numbers go on forever. There is no beginning nor end; the difference in the scale of the metric is the difference in degrees of infinity, which of course is no difference at all. The universe expands, but it doesn’t; objects in space move, but they don’t. The universe, objects, spacetime…they all exist, but they don’t. But how is this possible? Because the god of science declares it so.

The intellectual disagreements between religion science, it seems, boil down to little more than debates about whose god can beat up the other.

END

The Redundancy, Errors, and Philosophical Implications of Time Travel Theory (PART 2)

Metaphysics, Metaphysics of Time, Physics and Metaphysics, Space, Time and Space, , , , , , ,

The first problem with time travel theory is one which I have already obliquely addressed: the fact that time does not exist except as an abstract, mathematical construct. In other words, time is not a medium; it’s not a thing we exist in; we cannot travel through time because it isn’t there. Further, the admitted relativity of time according to General Relativity should make this clear to us. If time is relative to the observer, then it is utterly dependent upon the position of the observer AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT. That is, the observer’s CONSTANT frame of reference is “the moment”, or we might say the “perpetual present”—the constancy or perpetuity of his position. This “moment” or “perpetual present” is given temporal meaning by the observer’s CONSTANT frame of reference (and this is the Self-Aware Self…that is, it’s a metaphysical, not physical, reference) RELATIVE to other objects. If the observer and other objects share the same moment—the same “present”—then the relativity of time is purely theoretical. If the moment between the observer and other objects is different due to differences in acceleration, then the relativity of time becomes PRACTICAL..that is, the “time change” can be observed.

Of course the changes have nothing to do with time—time qua time—but I submit are a function of the relative difference in what I call the “direction of existence” (DOE) due to the acceleration of objects relative each other. And to briefly explicate my theory, it works something like this:

Existence is active, and therefore all objects move, or travel, in a root, “baseline”, or constant DOE. This is the source of gravity, I hypothesize, and is why objects with more mass have more gravity…they travel upon a larger or “wider” pathway of existence (POE) relative to less massive objects (this is also why light appears to bend around massive objects…light is moving past the POE, which looks like bending to an observer). When one object, A, accelerates (linearly, for example) relative to another, B, its “existence”, through an alteration along its DOE relative to B, “decrease”, which manifest measurably as “slowing” along the temporal continuum. In other words. because of the change in DOE as a function of acceleration in a new direction relative to B, A’s “time” when compared to B, using B’s time as reference, appears to decrease.

I understand that this is a very arcane and complex physical/philosophical theory, and the provided explication is by no means comprehensive nor is it intended to be. But I included it because I feel obligated to do so. It resolves all of the rational inconsistencies of time travel theory whilst remaining consistent with the scientifically verified empirical data. It shows how the “temporal” descrepancies in objects in different states of acceleration can exist without having to concede the causal, practical, physical existence of time.

*

The next problem with the time travel theory is that time always sums to ONE when measured against itself in comparisons of relative temporal frames of reference. Now, I know that this may seem obvious, as time, being a continuum, is, of itself, in possession of no temporal value (that is, time is, itself, necessarily TIMELESS), and therefore is, of itself, infinite. And of course when you divide time’s infinity into RELATIVE values, these values must always sum (return) to the infinite ONE of time’s own “temporal” value. So relative comparisons of temporal frames of reference between objects don’t actually imply ANY changes to time, itself. And if time itself doesn’t change with changes in temporal frames of reference between objects accelerating at different rates, because these changes are relative, then the temporal differences measured between them don’t actually have ANYTHING TO DO WITH TIME. Traveling through time doesn’t produce any changes in the timeline, itself. So how do we assert that time has changed for each object relative to one another if time hasn’t actually changed at all? As soon as we attempt to measure temporal changes utterly independent of the timeline we have contradicted ourselves. Time is exactly the same for all objects ALL the time, because time cannot change. All temporal “changes” are, by the theory’s OWN ADMISSION, a function NOT of time but of the relative position of the reference. There are only “temporal” changes when we make time RELATIVE TO AN OBJECT said to be “in time”. Thus, time travel has nothing to do with time and everything to do with how we humans ABSTRACTLY define a relative difference between objects. That ABSTRACTION is called “time”; time is not a thing, itself. Like “speed”, or “direction”, or “weight”, etc. etc. it’s a concept humans use to cognitively organize their environment.

*

Person A travels away at light speed from planet X on which remains person B. He returns after five years to discover that person B has aged 20 years.  But let’s not focus on person A. Let’s shift our attention to B. Is it possible that he, like A, can be said to have “time traveled”? Why yes it is. With respect to the relativity of time, the temporal comparison between A and B is likewise relative. Which means that to the same degree A has “time traveled” to the past with respect to B, B has “time traveled” to the FUTURE with respect to A. If time is our plumbline, and time is relative, then this must be the case. It cannot be any other way.

Let’s speak non-relatively for a second. From the point of view of A and B independent of each other, time has passed equally. That is, from their own independent frame of reference nothing has changed…time has passed the same as it always has. They are comfortably ensconced in their “perpetual present”. It is only when the relative comparison is made are there any temporal differences noted. So, this being the case…that is, the fact that time is only RELATIVELY different and not FUNDAMENTALLY different means that if person A has traveled to the future, and the change in time is INEXORABLY attached to the position of B, then person B must have traveled to the past in equal measure. The temporal relationship is proportionally inverse and fundamentally related. As one travels to the future the other travels equally to the past. Person A has gained time relative to person B, and B has lost time relative to A. Thus, despite the fact that A is the one who traveled at the speed of light, BOTH A and B have “time traveled”.

So the only way to “prove” time travel is to make a relative comparison, but as soon as we do that we must accept that both A and B have traveled in equal but inverse degrees, which means that time, on the whole, itself, hasn’t changed at all. Time is absolute. It, of itself, just IS. IT is constant; the change is purely the observer’s perception. Like an hour glass, the sand can shift from one side to the other, but the amount of sand remains constant. Any “change” is purely an abstraction. There is no OBJECTIVE change in how much sand is in the hour glass at any given moment. The sand itself just IS.

Time travel theory doesn’t prove the existence of time, time’s existence being implicit in the assertion that time can be traveled. Time is simply an abstract, mathematical construct spawned from man’s mind, as a function of the mind’s unique and extraordinary powers of conceptualization.

END

 

The Redundancy, Errors, and Philosophical Implications of Time Travel Theory (Part ONE)

Metaphysics of Time, Physics and Metaphysics, Space, Time and Space, , , , , ,

Undoubtedly, we all have heard of Einstein’s time travel thought experiment, which is made according to his principles of General Relativity. Without going into the small details, we understand that this theory is predicated upon the idea that movement through space-time is relative between observers. Now, if you are familiar with my blog you likely have been exposed to the rational inconsistencies which undermine the assertion that space and time (space-time) are existent. That is, that they are things which have existence in “objective, ontic reality” rather than abstract cognitive constructs; that they are THINGS, not simply ideas, as it were. I will briefly summarize these inconsistencies now:

First, space.

Space, being a vacuum, is by very definition the ABSENCE of things; it is not a thing itself—for this would invalidate its very purpose, that is, to serve as the CONTEXT for physical distinction, precisely because it is, itself, NOT physical. As soon as it becomes “objectively existent”, then it is no longer the distinction between things but a thing itself, which therefore leaves the distinction between objects in space, physically and empirically, undefined. In other words, if space is a thing. then what is the space between space and the things which are said to exist in it?

And time.

Time is similar to space in its rational inconsistency (as an object, existent) in that if we attempt to give it some kind of implied or explicit physical boundaries, then its meaning and efficacy collapse into the circular logic. Often we here the phrase “the beginning, or the end, of time”. But time can have no beginning nor end because by definition it IS the beginning and the end. Further, if we give time some kind of implied spatial boundary by appealing to objects as being “in time” or passing “through time”, then we admit that objects in themselves are fundametally timeless. This presents us with an unfortunate contradiction in that what is timeless at root cannot also be utterly obliged to time. And as far as I can deduce, once time becomes part of “objective reality” there can be no possible frame of reference for anyone or anything being OUTSIDE of it, so, as with space, attempting to make a distinction between time and that which exists “in it” becomes a fruitless pursuit.

Also, past, present, and future are mutually exclusive temporal contexts; from the observer’s frame of reference, the present is INFINITELY the present. He exists in the perpetual NOW of his SINGULAR conscious perspective (the “I” of human existence). And this infinite position of the Present is bookended, INFINITELY (absolutely), by the future and the past. People will counter my criticism by declaring time a continuum. And indeed it is. It is a continuum with no beginning and no end and thus it is infinite, and thus any values derive from it (e.g. past, present, future, specified in numerical/mathematical degrees, like minutes, hours, years, etc.) are degrees of infinity, which must necessarily be purely abstract. For there is no such existent THING as a “portion of infinity”. In other words, past, present, and future are components of that which has no beginning nor end, which makes them components of the infinite. Which of course is a meaningless contradiction in terms, practically/ontologically speaking.

*

The root of the problem with assuming that space-time is anything other than a convenient, entirely abstract, mathematical concept and context (called a “coordinate system” in physics, I think) is that it invariably descends into an abyss of infinity, and this makes it ontically irrelevant. In other words, without the objects said to exist in space-time, space-time has no relevance, meaning, or efficacy to physical reality.

Space-time can only exist as a function of the objects in it. Which is to say it then must be purely a function of man’s powers of abstract conceptualization. Man makes purely cognitive, conceptual distinctions between the objects which he observes, including himself (his body)…and one of these distinctions is “space-time”.

Scientists should be extremely wary of straying too far from the mathematics which are the bedrock of their school of thought. Their intellectual milieu is not the philosophical, as much as they seem to insist that it is. But philosophy does not deal in the abstract…at all. It does not deal in “degrees of infinity” as I like to refer to mathematics. It deals with rational consistency…it has corners, boundaries of conceptual compatibility and congruency (or it should, anyway, if it is proper and not madness). In philosophy, an Is Not (e.g. space) cannot also be an Is (e.g. that which physically interacts with the physical). In philosophy, the divine cannot be rationalized away by simply labeling  it “Laws of Nature”. In philosophy, there must be a well-defined distinction between the Observer and the Observed. In philosophy, human consciousness plays a key role in the explication of truth, it is not punted into the cosmic abyss of “epiphenomenon”.

I suck at physics and math…always have, so I don’t pretend to be an expert in the fields, even to the point of calling THEIR scholars fatuous or pseudo-intellectuals, as is often the reverse case. In my experience, the better one is at science/mathematics the worse he is at philosophy, though I do admit that this observation is mostly anecdotal. But as a general rule I don’t need my theoretical physicist to be my philosopher any more than I need my accountant to be my plumber.

*

So, you are familiar with the time travel theory, and it goes something like this: Persons A and B are on planet X. Person A travels away from planet X at the speed of light and then returns after five years from his observational frame of reference, which turns out to be 20 years from the frame of reference of person B. Now, as I said, math is not my strong suit, so I’m adlibbing the numbers here, but you get the idea. Time passes much more slowly for person A relative to person B.

It is important to mention that this theory is supported by a sufficient amount of empirical evidence, particularly those experiments, done in various contexts, which employ atomic clocks as temporal gauges. The “temporal distinction”—which is the alteration in the relative function of atoms in test subjects measured against a temporal reference, with acceleration/speed being the only functional difference—is measurable and repeatable. And so it is clear that there ARE indeed what I would call ACTUAL existential differences based upon relative distinctions in acceleration and speed. This is not hypothetical. It is real. Existence is indeed different, and fundamentally so, between objects that that travel at different speeds.

So what’s the problem then with the time travel theory? Experiments seem to show that it checks out. Well, it is not so much that it’s wrong but that it’s misleading. Now, I’m not suggesting that Einstein himself  intended the theory to mean anything beyond its mathematical parameters and implications (I’m not actually sure), but I do believe that since Einstein the time travel theory has implied some philosophically profound ideas that are now erroneously throught proven true. Like “time is real”, and that we all “exist in it”, and thus we do and can “travel through it”. ALL of these assertion are utterly false, and THIS is what the time travel experiments ACTUALLY prove.

END PART ONE

 

You Pay for the Protection of Political Correctness with Your Life (PART 2)

Authority, forced compliance, government, Identity, individualism vs collectivism, Metaphysics of Time, morality, Objective Relativity, , , ,

I submit that political correctness is unabashedly spawned from the substrata of collectivist metaphysics.  It claims to defend the civil rights and emotional integrity of “underrepresented” and “disadvantaged” groups…and this implicitly beyond, in spite of, and, at root, INSTEAD OF the principle of Equality Under the Law which the US Constitution guarantees for all of the nation’s citizens. So…already we seem to have something of a paradox going on here. Let’s unravel it.

As soon as it is claimed that one group (or more) is “disadvantaged”, it is necessarily implied that another is “advantaged”.  Therefore the only (rationally) possible, albeit perhaps implicit, goal of those advocating for “disadvantaged” groups is to make them “advantaged”, though they will claim either from ignorance or deceit that it is merely “equality” they are after.  But this simply cannot be the case as I will explain.

It’s not possible to have the second (“disadvantaged”) without the first (“advantaged”), so what advocacy for the “disadvantaged” amounts to in the end is merely the reversal of labels.  That is, there is and can be no real interest in equality, but rather in creating a system whereby the “advantaged” are relieved of their property through State-sponsored (“legal”) theft which is then given to the “disadvantaged”, ostensibly to engender social equality but in reality to create a permanently dependent category of voters who sell their freedom and their souls to have their fellow citizens pillaged by the State on their behalf…or so they think.  In truth the plight of the “disadvantaged” never ACTUALLY improves because that isn’t really the point.  In other words, advocacy for the “disadvantaged” is merely a barely-clever strategem intended to grow the Marxist-oriented ruling class into a juggernaut of utterly insatiable authoritarian political power.

There can be no rational speaking of equality whilst there exists any sort of collectivist class baiting, with spurious and manipulative jargon like “disadvantaged”, and this because of the collectivist metaphysical roots of whatever group of citizens happens to be the momentary political pawn du jour.  Because these metaphysical roots are certainly NOT merely political, but existential and as such MORAL, you see.  What I mean is that soon as one group is classified as “disadvantaged”, thus implying another is “advantaged”, we have morally bifurcated the citizenry at the very roots of how we define reality, itself.  That is, we have made our spurious class distinctions into a LITERAL war between good and evil; and this is why there is such ferocious and utterly intractable violence to be found on the collectivist side (the left) of the political spectrum. Collectivist politics make no distinction between a group’s economic value and its MORAL value.  The “advantaged” are EVIL; the disadvantaged” are GOOD…and why are they good?  Well, ostensibly because they are the victims of the political structures established by the “advantaged” in order that they may remain advantaged.  In reality it is because they are the group that the collectivist ruling elite have decided promote the Ideal which they will represent as Its governing Authority.  The “disadvantaged” are the group that promotes the expediency of their power.  This is the ONLY reason they are called “good”. Period. Full stop.

Another point on this idea of the “disadvantaged” as victims of political and institutional oppression, and thus represent the good:

Whether there is any truth to this ot not is irrelevant.  First, because those who advocate for the “disadvantaged” are those who wish to use the coercive violence of the State to promote their OWN political ideals at the expense of certain groups, making them hypocrites; and second because once you collectivize  human beings into groups—as opposed to foundationally judging and defining them as individuals—morality becomes utterly subjective.  To define an individual as FIRST and FUNDAMENTALLY a product of the group is to replace the person with an IDEAL.  And ideals, being purely abstract, can ONLY be SUBJECTIVELY valued.

Further, the “disadvantaged” cannot be made equal with the “advantaged” BY DEFINITION, because these two concepts are mutually exclusive. That is, it is impossible that EVERYONE be “advantaged” or “disadvantaged” because this contradicts these very concepts in the first place. So in order to be rationally consistent we must argue that these distinction are inherently false and utterly illegitimate as a means to describe the people…that everyone should be equal under the law, and that “disadvantage” and “advantage” are labels to be banished from political discourse (as self-serving and manipulative) and that equality under the law is ultimately the only meaningful, relevant, and practical context of each and every citizen as far as the State is concerned.

But this is simply impossible as soon as one claims to advocate for the “disadvantaged”.  You either advocate for equality under the law, or you advocate for the authoritarian despotism we see in EVERY society which has rooted itself in the pernicious class-baiting sculduggery of the bastard children of collectivism (Marxism, National Socialism (Fascism), Socialism, Social Democracy, Communism, and so on).

And so, getting back to the Constitution:

This document does not collectivize the citizenry (at least not intentionally…the inevitable rational and moral failure of the Constitution is due to the fact that it implies the legitimacy of government, of course, but not because of its driving metaphysical principles, which cannot be considered collectivist per se). And since it does not collectivize the citizenry it can neither imply nor confess the legitimate, legal existence or relevance of any particular “class”.  The Constitution, in other words, because it is not a collectivist document, has no frame of reference for the notions of “disadvantaged” or “advantaged” groups.  These are strictly Marxist ideals, and as far as the Constitution is concerned Marxism is a flaming ball of rubbish orbiting somewhere on the far, far outer fringes of reality, somewhere between madness and incompetence.  That is, class distinctions like “disadvantaged” are utter anathema to the Constitution.

Groups claiming that they are doing the “holy” work of advocacy for the “disadvantaged” you will notice NEVER appeal to the Constitution as the basis for rectifying any perceived unfair legal discrepancies between individuals.  This is because A. they don’t acknowledge the root existential legitimacy of the individual in the first place; and B. the Individualist nature of the Constitution means that as far as they are concerned it has about as much to do with rectifying social injustice and managing the disparate economic classes as does a spoonful of room temperature lima beans. They don’t concern themselves with the Constitution because they understand it is an ENEMY of their collectivist assumptions. True “Justice”, in their eyes, is not about the Constitutional rights of the Individual but about who wields absolute power on behalf of the “moral” collective Ideal.  The politics of political correctness are of power, not truth; revenge, not justice; sacrifice to the State, not cooperation among the people.

END (Up next, PART 3)

A Physicist Finally Engages Argo

Metaphysics of Time, Physics and Metaphysics

A Physicist Finally Engages Argo:  The notion of “time”

Many thanks to Wartburg Watch’s resident physicist, a commenter who goes by the moniker of “Old John J”.  The thread in question concerned the ongoing debate between Old Earth and Young Earth proponents; clearly, Old John J, being a professional physicist, sides with mainstream science (as do I, in the strict terms of the debate).  However, that is merely because Young Earth proponents want to concede the same scientific presumptions on what constitutes the agreed upon definitions.  In other words, in both camps, a second is a second, a minute a minute, a year a year…and so on.  For me, as one who denies the concept of time as nothing more than a product of a mind which can conceptualize his environment, I believe that the whole debate is moot from the start.  The only relevant question in any school of that is what constitutes actual value; the source of truth…or, that which all ideas are in service to as the plumb line for their TRUTH. That is the place from which all ideas should proceed.  Otherwise, it’s merely academics quibbling about relative terms which don’t actually mean anything.

Since time is not absolute, because both schools of thought, Old Earth and Young Earth (scientific and religious), concede that time was created, “in the beginning”, then time by definition did not have a time from which it started (a contradiction in terms anyway).  And if time itself has no beginning time, it is impossible then to say that any time which we ascribe at all to any motion of any object regardless of the reference we use (a calender or clock or moon or sun) has any sort of actual, non-subjective,  value.  Thus, the  debate actually boils down to a quibbling about definitions.  What I am trying to say to Old John J in this dialog, and having little success it seems for whatever reason (I chalk it up to the stubbornness of physicists in general; they will concede an argument about as readily as a Calvinist will, so…you get the point), is that all Young Earth proponents need to do to reasonably reject Old Earth science is redefine time in such a way that it “proves” that the age of the earth is relatively young, as opposed to relatively old (and really, they don’t even need to go to that trouble…they just need to rightly point out that since science doesn’t have an absolute reference for time, then age is relative; they can just as rationally call the Earth young as they call it old; a billion years can become a thousand years and there is no absolute standard by which to refute their claim).  Since time is indeed relative to whatever abstract reference we choose, “old” and “young” can mean whatever we want it to mean.

This of course is a notion that anyone who believes in a “force” which “determines/governs” the universe simply cannot suffer.  Mystic, or scientist…they love excluding man from the equation.  And that is the crux of my problem with science, and why I love going after the assumptions of Old Earthers (scientists/physicists).  In the end, their “Standard Model” is as subjective as Calvin’s standard model of the Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Both break down, collapsing under the weight of their own capricious definitions, as soon as we realize that the SELF (a physical body) is the source of itself, by itself, and that it simply cannot be any other way.  Both physics standard models and religious models (and all models for that matter) inevitably arrive at the only place they can really go:  utter contradiction of themselves and, if forced upon the masses anyway, the destruction of mankind in favor of their abstract absolute “truth” which “controls” absolutely.

People think I’m nuts…but I have seen the end of all “laws” (determining forces described in various schools of thought), and they end either in the affirmation of mankind’s singular and perfect value/truth, or mankind’s utter ruin in service to a “truth” which lay perpetually beyond him.  And the belief that this truth “controls/determines” is simply more proof that man cannot really be valued in the equation, and thus, cannot be known to exist. There is no middle ground.

Incidentally, if you really want to get their—that is, the physicist’s—goat (they are fun to poke at), tell them that the universe is not, in fact, expanding.  Watch the nerds fly into a rage.  Tell them that since the “big bang” created space and time, thus making space and time and of course the universe itself as having an origin of NOWHERE and NO-WHEN, it is impossible to deduce that the universe is in fact expanding because by definition (their own!) there is no actual place the universe could be expanding from.  Space began in NO space.  And time began at NO time.  And that being the case, there can be no location to the start of the “expansion”.  Therefore, the universe is where it is now in the same place it was then…and where it is, is nothing more than itself.

Again, if the universe doesn’t have a starting point, then it cannot be going anywhere.  For how can anything be going anywhere if it came from nowhere?  It is an irrational notion.  Movement, and thus expansion, by extension, is simply another way man qualifies the relative motions (which can be of a variety of sorts, not just “movement”, but “time” and “distance” and “direction” and “energy”, etc.) between two bodies.  In reality, since there is no actual value to space or time, because in the physics model both were created, and thus are direct functions of NO space or time, there is no such thing as expansion.  Expansion is relative between two bodies.  The location of those bodies can thus only be themselves in literal fact.

To me, it seems that the logical fallacies of physics are the only things actually expanding.

Finally…before we get on to the dialog between myself and Old John J…

Why is this important?  Why do I spend so much time going after these false notions of time and space as entities which, though they are direct functions of the utter contradictions of themselves (of no space and no time) even according to physics itself, are deemed as somehow non-relative and actually causal?

I do it to show the insidiousness of the philosophy of the Primacy of  Consciousness.  I do it to show just how quickly abstract truth can pass for CAUSAL truth.  These “laws” are always thought to carry the epistemological and existential day.  ALL notions of absolute truth outside of man–like the Jewish “law” as James Jordan argues it, like the Gnosticism of post-Augustinian Christianity, like the Standard Model of physics–must eventually push man into a place of utter irrelevance.  If we do not concede that all truth is a direct function of the physical bodies which actually exist, observed by a man’s conscious mind, then man must become an affront and an enemy of truth.  Once that happens, man must be destroyed.  There is no living with an absolute truth that does not include YOU.  There. Is. No. Living.  Period.  Either YOU are VALUE, or you are the enemy of value (and another word for “value” is “morality”).

If physics places truth outside of man, then physics becomes the destroyer of worlds like any old despotic religion does.  Man dies in the service of truth.  That is why this is important.  And physics and math and science are the gold standard for impenetrable abstract “truth” in the world.  To me, if I can declare and reveal the contradictory assumptions and the false logic of these schools of thought, then the rest of the despotic ideas which rule the world will be easy fodder.  One can easily show how individual man is outside of the “collective”, and thus, the collective itself must be nothing more than an abstract concept meant to enslave individuals to a “truth” which MUST destroy them in service to itself.  That isn’t too hard.  But declaring that you or your mind are NOT a product of physical laws which determine or govern, which we can observe to be efficacious in many tangential-to-man’s-self ways, such as industry and technology…well, that is hard.

But we must ask ourselves:  Does efficacy in these areas make the laws of physics “true”?  What is “truth”… meaning, if truth is in service to areas outside of man’s self, then what does that make “truth”?  Is a science-based technology used to kill men and women and children (Syria?)  in mass quantities “true”?  And if so, true according to what?  Not to man, obviously…thus, the truth is revealed by what the science is used in service to, not In the science actually “working”, I submit.  For if what “works” is what removes mankind from the face of the Earth, then “works” is actually NOT working at all.  And so in this sense, the laws of physics are not any different than the laws of government, or art, or language, or economics.  All of these schools of thought have their ways of organizing the world.  Science is no different.  In all cases, there are ideas—there are “laws”—and yet, the truth can only be measured one way:  the affirmation of that which is the only thing which can be objectively known as TRUTH:  human beings.

Here is the dialog between Old John J and myself.  John J bailed I would say pretty early…but maybe you don’t think so.  That’s fine.  For me, well, like I said…a physicist is simply a priest of sorts. They are the ones divinely given grace to perceive the truth.  When Old John J declares he has nothing more to add to the discussion, this is the same thing as a Calvinist saying “Well, I know it’s true; you don’t have to accept it”.  In other words, agreement with them is the only way you can have truth.  You have to agree before you understand.  [sigh]  Notice in the discussion with Old John J his presumption that the consistency of ideas is not relevant.  That is, truth can be known in spite of its foundational assumptions being utterly mutually exclusive to reason.  Notice how time does not need to have any actual absolute value in order to be completely able to consistently and accurately describe reality.

This is not a rational idea.  The notion of a NON-absolute ruling absolutely is insanity.  This is merely mysticism in a white lab coat instead of a miter.

Here is me and Old John J talking time.  The couple of comments in brackets are mine, added during the writing of this post:

Argo said:

The answer is simple [to the question of “how old is the universe”] : there is no actual “age” of the earth or universe since time is, according to GR, relative. In both YE and scientific claims, time is “created”. This means that time itself begins, by definition, at “zero time”…or, better said, time is created at the location of NO time. This makes time itself a direct function of zero. Which means that the age of the universe and earth cannot really be known since the birthdate of anything which exists is 0/0/0.

Old John J said:

Argo, sorry I missed this yesterday.

I think there is considerable confusion here. Time is not an absolute measure. It is always the difference between two times taken with respect to the same reference: our calendars and clocks. Relativity as in General Relativity defines how perceived times are to be compared over large distances, large gravitational field differences, large speed differences. It’s computations are precise, not relative as in the colloquial sense of the word. Your age is not arbitrary: at the minimum I assume you know it’s date. Official accounting of time here on Earth is done by counting seconds. The second is defined in terms of a reproducible property of the Cesium atom. The inability to establish an absolute time does not in any way call into question time keeping.

Many physical properties have been shown to take place extremely regularly. Radioactive decay is one of them. OE proponents count on the long term reproducibility of many different radioactive decay sequences, measured quantities that are falsifiable by direct observations to make their age estimates. All measurements are subject to certain amounts of uncertainty. Statistics was invented to deal with such measurement problems. No statistical uncertainties in the current OE age of Earth estimates are large enough to encompass the YE preferred age.

Argo said:

Old John J,

I am fully aware of how the YE crowd attempts to “prove” its “science” by appealing to the usual scientific assumptions regarding what constitutes a “day”, or an “hour”, or the “math” or whatever. I am being a little facetious when I suggest that YE crowd simply needs to redefine a “second” according to their own consensus. Since time, as you admit, is not absolute, really, it boils down to what we label (how we choose to quantify) the relative movement (relative to us) of whatever object we are tracking as the reference.

You rightly point out the use of atomic clocks for time keeping. Sure…it’s a great system, as long as we all agree that a motion from A to B (or whatever interaction we choose to measure) constitutes a second (strange…no one asked me). Since time is not absolute, then what if we make the same motion from A to B two hours? Do that enough, get the math to work out, and you have “proven” YE. My point is that time is merely a measurement of what physical objects do…it is not a “law” that governs the motion of those objects. Time is a term. Human beings give it meaning. As with everything then, truth is a function of man, not a function of abstract measurements.

I understand it may seem like semantics. However, I submit that truth gets clouded when we lose sight of ideas like relative time (not absolute). We begin to subjugate man to “forms” which are beyond him. This can only lead to man’s destruction. In addition, I submit that science would be more evolved if it dropped its Platonist facade. Ideas like “numbers don’t lie” must hinder any scientific endeavor, I assume. One has to ask, if we began with the proper assumption, that the SELF is what actually exists and acts (and even more so, that truth is ultimately derived from the conscious observer), might we have advanced our understanding?

Old John J said:

Time is a well defined concept. There is no absolute time but since all given times are actually the difference between two measurements the lack of an absolute reference is immaterial. Time differences can probably be measured more accurately than any other physical quantity. There is sufficient accuracy to see even the minuscule variations due to General Relativity effects on our planet. There is nothing in the physics of time that can bridge the gap between OE and YE age estimates for the Earth.

Argo said:

“Time is a well defined concept.”

Defined by who? Time does not define itself. Man defines time. So if I don’t accept your concept, you have no way to prove me wrong. Time has no reference. Itself has no value.

“There is no absolute time but since all given times are actually the difference between two measurements the lack of an absolute reference is immaterial.”

On the contrary. Since there is no actual reference for time (an absolute reference) then time cannot be defined absolutely. All values of time then are both relative and a matter of consensus. You cannot PROVE an age based on a reference which you admit does not exist.

“Time differences can probably be measured more accurately than any other physical quantity.”

Differences based on a reference number that is merely theoretical. Change the number, change the measurement.

“There is sufficient accuracy to see even the minuscule variations due to General Relativity effects on our planet.”

Variations in what? Time is a concept. Variations in time are variations only insofar as the abstract reference is agreed upon. The only ultimately non- subjective measurement of time is OBJECT (self). Every object is where and when it is. Any other description is theoretical only. A theoretical measurement between the relative movement between two or more objects. Remove objects, remove time.

“There is nothing in the physics of time that can bridge the gap between OE and YE age estimates for the Earth.”

Time does not have physics because it is a product of cognition. It, itself, is an absolute idea (infinite ). It can have no measurements apart from objects; thus, it has no physics. Physics itself is theoretical only. If you change the definitions, you change the age of the earth. You claim the earth is old. I might claim it is young. Outside accepted definitions, neither argument is right. Because there is no reference for time ITSELF.

Old John J said:

Time is fundamental to all of physics [oh…I know, heh, heh]. It is in no way undefined or arbitrary. Time is measured by reproducible periodic astronomic or atomic phenomena. An agreed on reference time and date and choice of measurement units is all that is needed to compare the times of different events. The small gravitational and velocity effects that occur in measuring time are well understood as shown by the functioning of the Global Positioning System.

There is nothing that allows for the YE 6000 year estimate of the age of the Earth to be taken seriously compared to the accepted OE estimate of 4.5 billion years (4,500,000,000). This the only absolute in dealing with time that I accept.

Educationally, I am an old experimental physicist. Theologically only Genesis 1:1 appears to be a useful science reference point. The remainder of the first 11 Genesis chapters speak to the relationship God expects from his chosen people: no idols, polytheism and an expected moral righteousness. Genesis should not be interpreted in the light of contemporary science.

Beyond this I don’t believe I have anything that I contribute to a deeper discussion of time.

Argo said:

Old John J,

I am not trying to be argumentative. But seems to me that physicists have as hard a time letting go of their assumptions about reality as anyone else. They think that because they have models which do a good job of organizing the environment, that they get to claim somehow that these models are causal. (Maybe not you…but the idea that physical laws “govern” I have heard all my life; it is a lie…because that which is purely theoretical cannot govern, because it cannot exist.) So, the real question is WHY do we decide that the way physics models and uses the concept of time is “better” than one who would choose to disregard those models, such as a YEC proponent?

What is the thing which the models are in service to? If you say “truth”, fine…but what is truth in service to? True in what way? All truth must boil down to the affirmation of what EXITS, which is not physics itself, but the relative relationship between the objects physics describes. Objects are the cause of themselves…the physics is simply a paradigm we use to organize what we observe. And what exists as a function of the VALUE that physics is in service to is MAN. Anytime the model becomes causal (time becomes “objective”), then truth is outside of humanity. And this is the Platonism in science. This will eventually lead to abuse. Physics, like any other idea, must serve the affirmation of MAN, or it cannot be proven as true. We can argue against YEC…but if we argue it by making physics the new primary consciousness, instead of the “biblical inerrancy” like the Young Earthers declare, then we are hypocrites.

And I am right. Age is relative. By definition. If time is a function of “no time”, then any value of time is NOT actual. Your appeal to physical phenomenon as the source of time is concession of this argument. I am forty years old. Relative to the age of the earth. Relative to the age of the universe. Relative to the big bang (or creation) which occurred at NO time. All age stems then from a reference which is zero. Age is relative. The only actual age is ME. I am when I am. You are when you are. Age is merely a brand of relatively quantifying our difference with respect to an agreed upon theoretical reference.

I asked: At what time did time begin? There is no answer to this question that doesn’t ultimately prove that time does not exist. It has no absolute reference itself, so any value of time is going to relative to whatever objects we are observing. If we put all objects into a physics model, then time certainly can seem “non-arbitrary”. But the fact is as one time, some PERSON had to decide how to define a day. An hour. A minute. The definition itself doesn’t really matter…consensus matters. Why does consensus matter between human beings…what is the value they are trying to perpetuate? Existence of MAN.

The only truth then is LIFE. Human life. Life(man’s SELF) then is the objective source of truth from which all ideas (even physics) stems. Physics is not causal. It is descriptive. It is man’s attempt to organize his universe in a way that affirms himself.

Post Script:

Here is a perfect example of the favoritism and hypocrisy which exists at Wartburg Watch.  This is precisely why I reject all of the arguments Dee has made for placing me in permanent moderation on her blog.  In this way, she plays the part of a hypocrite perfectly.  This is a good example of the kind of reasoning she used to moderate me into oblivion there in the first place:

Bennett Willis said:

Argo,

The uncertainty in time is such that even over 4.5 billion years it does not amount to your age. Please select something that matters to discuss.

Argo said:

Huh?

Something that matters? The insinuation of an abstract, theoretical construct as the source (cause) of truth doesn’t matter? In the context of a blog meant to deal with abuse, I would say you need to rethink what matters.

You and I have different notions of what constitutes relevance. I do not agree that you are the arbiter of what is truly relevant.

Dee said:

Argo

Could you take it down a notch? Thanks.

So…yes, I am accused of discussing something wholly irrelevant, while none of my claims are refuted, and when I respond to the accusation, I’m the one who has to tone it down.

The Marxism of the mind.  The Haves are to be sacrificed to the Have Nots.

The tyranny which so easily seduces is seen in so many little fits and starts.  It is big in some places, and small in others.  But it is there, always and inexorably.  People think that can never fall prey to the devil’s schemes.  That’s because we don’t fall…we waltz right in.

The Future and God’s Surprise?: A misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my perspective of God and “future”…to Pastor Wade Burelson

Calvinism/Philosophy, Metaphysics of Time

Wade, you said:

“Argo believes God did not know it would occur, and as such, is  as surprised by it as you were.”

This was Wade Burleson’s response to a commenter regarding God’s foreknowledge of the “future”, and in particular some abusive actions perpetrated upon the commenter by I believe a church (NOT WADE’S!!) and what Wade incorrectly assumes about my perspective on this issue.  My response is below.

Oh…one more thing.

I want to thank Wade for showing courage and integrity by coming on the little unimpressive blog of an utter, rank nobody and discoursing and debating with this nobody (me) on his own turf.  Regardless of my disdain for reformation theology, and likely most of the doctrines to which Wade subscribes, I affirm his charity and I affirm his human SELF.

I also understand that it is difficult if not impossible to rationally separate ideas from men/women and actions.  But in as much as it is possible for me to do that here without contradicting my own philosophy, I appreciate Wade for NOT acting consistently with what I understand his views to be.  This shows an acknowledgment of the worth of humanity…and that is coming FROM WADE.  Like the things we hate, the things we love come from the same person, and as such, we must and can only concede that the SOURCE of the things we love, the human being, is truly the source of them as much as they may be the source of the ideas we despise.  It is a tricky metaphysical position, but I feel that it points to my idea that all human beings are good human beings at the core of their very existence.  Because of this, Wade deserves thanks and affirmation of his SELF, once again.

Anyway…as I was saying, my response to Wade is below:

In the coming days I plan on doing a longer post on this issue, because the false interpretation of “predestination” and “foreknowledge” are the twin pillars of the destruction of the entire concepts of man and God. They are not only rationally irreconcilable, but they blaspheme God at His root, for the very reasons I mentioned in my latest post. If you haven’t read it, I strongly encourage you to, and please rebut it if you can.

Your inference that I am saying God is “surprised” by events is incorrect. The reason this concerns me is that it misrepresents my point entirely, and distorts the situation (and, to me, passive aggressively suggests the OPPOSITE: that God knows abuse is evil, saw it happen before it happened, and did nothing to prevent it, thus making God entirely culpable for the tragedy…and this should concern you; God is NOT pleased with your concessions on this matter, no matter how hard you try to nuance them or contort your beliefs or chalk it up to “mystery”), for several reasons, the most egregious of which is that it speaks to the fact that you are not understanding my premise at all.

I make no claim to know how God or anyone else reacts to events. “Surprise” is an emotion, and as such, people will react with “surprise” (or any other emotion on the huge human spectrum) to different events. You might be surprised if your wife brought you a chicken with peanut butter sandwich; I would not be surprised at all. How God reacts to abuse I cannot say…perhaps surprise, but given the tendency of men to inflict pain and torment and despotism and obliteration and oppression and burning and banishing upon one another with impunity, often in His own name–as I can show you by an elementary logical examination of every single point in the TULIP construct–I would hardly expect God to be surprised at abuse.

But perhaps. Who knows? I don’t. So your statement is false.

But this idea of assuming that my doctrine leads one to assume God is “surprised” at how man acts is indicative of your lack of understanding of the whole concept of what the “future” actually is, in my opinion.

Surprise is a REACTION to events…and as such, by definition, one cannot be surprised, or have any only kind of emotional response, until AFTER an event occurs. What this means is that surprise or any other emotion is not inexorably tied to an occurrence…which is what you seem to suggest:  that if you don’t KNOW what is going to happen then you NECESSARILY will be surprised by it.

This is a false linking of two separate concepts…action and emotion.

This is not my point at all. What is my point is quite simple. By definition, the future is that which has NOT HAPPENED yet. Another way of saying this is the future is what is NOT. Meaning, that for the future to actually be the FUTURE and not the PRESENT (having already come to pass; being inevitable, being IS in categorical essence) then it cannot possibly EXIST. And the logical point I am making is simply that that which does not exist can ONLY be, by definition, NOTHING. It cannot be known because that which is NOTHING cannot have any attributes to KNOW.

Therefore, not even God can know the future UNLESS He UTTERLY determines it (in which case, it isn’t the future, but IS the IS…the NOW, in essence, being inevitable) because there is NOTHING to know. God cannot know how you WILL act because if you WILL act it means that you have CANNOT have YET acted…and as such the actions which you WILL do cannot be known because future actions are what? They are nothing! They don’t exist.

Wade…with respect, you cannot get around this. You cannot make nothing become something without declaring utter fatalistic determinism. And this is the crux of where your doctrine goes seriously wrong. To declare God knows the future is to make Him the author of it…it is the only way to explain how a future can BE before it IS. This MUST make God responsible for every evil act. That is rank blasphemy! Why are people not terrified by this? They just shrug and say “mystery”…God is not amused.

Please explain to me…you, or ANYONE, I am begging you; any physicists, mathematicians…anyone, please explain to me how you can know that which is nothing?

Wade, how does God know what does not exist? And if He sees it then it must exist, right?  It can only be seen if it is THERE…if it isn’t THERE, how can God know it/see it?  How can the future exist BEFORE it exists so that it can be known?

If you have no answer for this, you must concede you lose this debate. God cannot KNOW the future because the future, quite simply, isn’t REAL. It is nothing more than a abstraction.

To further hammer the point:

And if it is real, then how did it get there to be known? You and I didn’t do it, we didn’t put the future there…we aren’t in the future! That’s just axiomatic. So…who put the future in place, then?

According to your definition of God’s sovereignty? Who must have put the future there so it can be known?

Who orchestrates the future so that it is there so that He can know it. Obviously man cannot have put the future there, so…..that leaves. Er…who, Wade?

Who then must have made the FUTURE ABUSE, Wade, if not man?  Who must have put the abuse THERE so that He could know it and see it BEFORE Oasis did?  

God Knowing the Future is God’s Abdicating Himself: The blasphemous notion of God’s absolute knowledge of the purely abstract notion of time

Calvinism/Philosophy, Metaphysics of Time

I commented on SpiritualSoundingBoard.com today, and it was so long and I enjoyed it so much that I thought it prudent to post it as a new article.  It concerns one of my all time favorite topics, which is “time”; more precisely, expressing rationally why time is nothing more than a human abstraction used to organize his environment.  This is important, because as soon as we elevate abstract concepts to the place of existential reality, and even worse, causal power, we have destroyed the very self of man and God.  Existence becomes an illusion, and understanding impossible.  There can be no God or man or Jesus or salvation unless we determine that only what physically IS can ACTUALLY exist, and drive action.

Here is my post:

“Lydia – I do not believe that God forced Adam and Eve to sin. You admit that the fallen world was not a surprise to him. So He knew about it in advance, right? Could He have decided, then, to not create the world? I think the answer is yes. But He created it anyway, knowing about the fall. Forget for the moment about whether or not He ordained it. He had the knowledge that it would happen. Wouldn’t you say then that he was cruel to have created it? I think that if you are consistent, you would have to say yes. The bottom line is that a world was created that would undergo a fall, and that God knew it would happen.”

Jeff Brown said this to Lydia…and, you see, this is another one of those ideas that somehow we get about God and it never seems to shake loose, even though the idea changes the entire nature of God and man, even contrary to the biblical notion of God and man in a relationship.

Where do we get the idea, and why do we assume that God, in order to be a perfect God, must someone “know the future”?  Jeff’s very comment illustrates the rational force fields which prevent forming a coherent understanding between God’s knowledge of things, His ordaining of things, and thus His moral culpability in such things. There is no way God cannot ultimately be responsible for “evil” that He knows before it happens but does nothing to prevent.  Impossible. This is directly because we have a false understanding of time, and we make the false assumption that God functions in a way in which He always understands what “will happen” to some kind of infinite point.

Where in the bible, or in even common sense is this idea manifest as an absolute truth?  Not only is God’s perfect wisdom and knowledge NOT predicated on any sort of absolute knowledge of the future, it is a rank logical fallacy to accept this.  It destroys the concept of BOTH man and God as any sort of definable “selves” completely.

Listen, if God knows the future, and His knowledge is perfect, then everything that happens MUST be determined.  Everything you do now is nothing more than an act that was already “seen” by God BEFORE it happened (and here is that logical fallacy again says that something can exists before it exists).  And since God is the Creator of everything, then He must be directly responsible for whatever acts He sees you doing in the future, which you have not yet done.  And if His knowledge is perfect and He sees you acting in the future, then you MUST act in the way God sees.  Your actions are determined.  Morality cannot exist.  There can be no just reward and no just condemnation.  Morality is a lie.

But worse than that is the blasphemy inherent in this idea of God absolutely knowing the future.

God cannot act FREELY in a future He already knows.  This means that if He sees the future, and the future must include Him, then whatever actions He sees HIMSELF doing in the future are determined.  God not only sees man absolutely in the future, but He also sees Himself, too.  God, Himself, is determined.

But what determines God?  It is a logical impossibility to say that God freely determines Himself.  That makes no sense.  Free will cannot choose to determine itself at the EXPENSE of that will.  If you freely decided to determine your actions, you have utterly destroyed YOURSELF.  If God determines Himself, then it is no longer He who is in control of His actions, but DETERMINISM.  And God cannot cannot abdicate Himself in favor of another force. That is blasphemous.

Determinism is an absolute, period.  It has no end to it.  If man’s future is known then God’s must be, too.  Both man and God exist at the mercy of actions that they both must inexorably must engage apart from any self volition.  So, the problem with God knowing the future is that He condemns Himself to the same determined action man is condemned to. If God is said to have His own will, then He cannot know the future, cannot know what “will happen”, because what will happen must inexorably include His own actions.

So, no…God did not know the fall and yet create anyway.  That is not rationally possible.  The fall was NOT supposed to happen according to God’s purpose.  It happened because individuals, act always in accordance with their own free and unfettered WILL.

Remember, if God knows the future, He is in no more control of His actions than man is of man’s actions.  And this is why this concept is an insult to God’s very self. We MUST be more careful before ascribing what WE assume to be “perfection”.  We are blaspheming God in doing this.

 

 

 

 

Leaping Both Old-Earth and Young-Earth Arguments in a Single Bound: The fallacy is rooted (as always) in the false presumptions

Metaphysics of Time

Here is the comment I left at Wartburg Watch, which went unanswered.

“If time and space were created at the Big Bang, then it would be impossible to assign a “where” and a “when” to that event, right? Therefore, how do you define its beginning? You can’t really say it happened however many billions of years ago, because, by definition there can be no WHEN (and by extension no WHERE) to its “beginning” since time and space didn’t exist until AFTER the big bang. And so, it is impossible to tell ultimately then how old the universe is…indeed, you cannot even say it had a beginning, because something that is absent a time or place cannot be said to have a beginning.”

I suspect it won’t be the last time this question will go unanswered.  Physicists are extremely reticent to admit the Platonism inherent in their science; because at the end of it all is a great big fat shrug.  At the core of science, I have come to realize–at least as it pertains to the foundational mathematics–is nothing more than Gnosticism in quantifiable form.  And this is to say that this is the scientific definition of TRUTH:  that what cannot be proven, because it cannot be shown to be actual (like numbers and constants and “laws” which govern), because it cannot be observed, is really the cause of all which exists. 

And for the experimental physicists this must be doubly frustrating.  I mean, as those who claim that empirical evidence is THE evidence of choice for TRUTH, it must be awfully hard to acknowledge that at the root of the presumption is that what cannot be actually observed is the “objective” standard for how we gauge the veracity our empirical–that is observed–evidence.  In other words, we prove observational evidence as a direct function what cannot at all be observed, which is of course  how the math reconciles.

Math is nothing more than the abstract quantification of the action of an object (or objects) after it has already happened.  Seems a little too convenient to me to be the gold standard for TRUTH.  You set your constants by the actions of objects you can only observe after the fact, and then you claim laws which govern…which implies, coming BEFORE.  And so you what you are trying to get past the logical smell test is to declare that all which is said to govern is a direct function of purely object-derived actions which I submit can never be rationally proven to have been caused by these laws at all because you can never observe a law before it acts upon an object. Which means that all you can possibly know unless you are declaring some kind of mystic “revelation” or “divine insight” is that objects act FIRST; which means all actions are a direct function of the object’s ability to act; which means that the object, not the math or the “law” is the source of its being.

Does this not raise the eyebrows of a single rational soul?  How can we claim truth when by our very standards we can never actually SEE it.

Hmmm…I see a contradiction in terms on the road ahead.

It isn’t then curious why the experimental physicist on the Wartburg Watch, Old John J saw the road..and turned around.

So then, having said all of that, it seems to me that the problem with Young Earth Creationism as touted by the gnostic mystics of pseudo-Christianity and Old Earth Creationism as touted by the gnostic mystics of pseudo-empiricist standards is the exact same problem:  the impossibility of actually defining the terms “old” and “young”.  For if time is purely relative (and it is) and is nothing more than an abstraction which is derivative of a man’s ability to cognitively abstract (which it is), then it is impossible to declare that old is actually old or that young is actually young because there is no actual reference point.  For by definition time is nothing more than a qualification/quantification of the relative movement between two (or more objects)…a different conceptual idea of movement, as opposed to “distance”, or “length”, or even “gravity”.

So the problem then is that there is no other ACTUAL reference (but only a man-contrived abstract reference) by which to gauge the “time” of the universe in order that the universe may be determined to be either young or old.  Since the “beginning” of Creation is a singularity, then what is the other reference point by which we measure its time?  There is no Y to Creation’s X; no B to Creation’s A.  How do you have a measurement of any temporal kind unless you can know the start TIME…that is, you cannot have an AGE unless you know WHEN whatever it is you are temporally defining BEGAN.  If there is no WHEN to its beginning, then it cannot have an AGE.  And what I am submitting is that since Creation had a beginning literally in a vacuum according to both young and old earthers, as well as agnostic or atheist scientists, it is categorically impossible to declare when  Creation began.  And if you cannot know when Creation began (further compounded by the fact that it is often said-without any sense of irony by either the Young Earth or Old Earth advocates-that space and time were likewise Created in the beginning…which has a temporal value of ZERO, making time a direct function of NO TIME )…so, again, if you cannot know when Creation began then it is by definition impossible to say just how old or young Creation actually is.

And further, how do you have a beginning from NOTHING at all?  How does NOTHING (because both camps assume that God made Creation from nothing) spawn a thing which does not exist?  What value can be given to Creation if the material from which it sprang forth is zero?  Anything derived from zero is zero…even the mathematicians have to give me that one.  That’s just common mathematical sense.  A four year old knows that if you start with zero bananas and add a banana you haven’t added ONE banana to zero, you have merely replaced the empty spot on the table with a banana.  You can add another banana to get two bananas, but you can’t add one of anything to nothing-to NO banana; to the absence of banana–to make that nothing become ONE banana.  Because the absence of banana is understandably infinite.  The absence of banana cannot become, by definition, banana.

And the same is true for the universe.  The absence of anything cannot produce something by definition because then it becomes a contradiction in terms.  The absence of universe cannot ever be created into “universe” without utterly destroying the concept of “nothing”.  And if that is destroyed, then so is the idea that God is “first cause”.  Because God could not have created something from nothing if nothing did not exist.  Except that in order for nothing to exist; for nothing to remain truly nothing, then something by definition could never have been derived from it.

It is a logical sinkhole from which there is no escape no matter how hard one tries.  It is not possible.  James Jordan tried in the comments thread of the previous post on this topic and failed to bridge the gap of the bottomless, gaping chasm of logical madness.  In the end, if you concede NOTHING then you cannot claim that anything can be created out of it.  It just doesn’t work.  At. All.

But getting back to the notion of time.

As I was saying, you simply cannot determine old or young if you cannot define the “when” of Creation’s start.  And it doesn’t matter that the physicists or Old Earth creationists speak of events happening “ten seconds after the big bang” or “one minute after the big bang”.  If you cannot say WHEN the big bang was (or WHERE, by extension) then you cannot define what in the hell ten seconds or one minute actually is. 

Ten seconds from what?  Is my wholly rational question.

Ten seconds after the big bang.

Yes, but when was the big bang?

We cannot say, because our reference time and place for the big bang is “nothing’; or at best is merely “the big bang”.  The big bang IS the beginning.

Then how do you know ten seconds passed if there is no start time?  If the start time is the big bang…well, that’s not a time.  Ten seconds then is merely arbitrary.  There is no way to prove that ten seconds is actually ten seconds.

The big bang didn’t have a time, it was “beginning”.

Yes, but how do you define beginning?

Big bang.

How do you define time?

Big bang.

What is ten seconds?

Big bang.

Then how can we know that ten seconds is ten seconds if it impossible to make a distinction between the passage of “time” and the thing from which it sprang?

*
*
*

I tell you readers…this is Looney Tunes.

Aaaaaaand the same argument can be used on the intelligent design folks.

*
*
*

God created the heavens and the earth in six days.

Six days from when?

From when He started.

Yes, but when was that…what time did He start?

When He did. He didn’t start at a time; He created time.

So time had a beginning AFTER God BEGAN to create.  Okay…I’ll make it easy on you:  Just tell me then when God created time (because, it doesn’t say in the Bible that God created time); that is, how soon after he began to create did He make time?  Was it a minute after He began creating?  An hour after He began creating?  

He began it when He began it.

So the “time” he created time is indefinite?

Yes.  Because He just did.

Okay…when was it finished being created?  How long did it take God to create time.

I’m not sure…let’s say, an hour after.

So an hour beginning at indefinite time?

Sure.

Do you not see how that is completely contradictory and logically insane? How can you start to count sixty minutes beginning with an indefinite “moment”?  If the beginning moment itself is completely excluded from the time construct, how can it possibly the be the beginning of a sixty-minute cycle of time? 

Because I can make the time anything I wa…er, it is a matter of Biblical truth.  Time is real, because it’s in the Bible.

No, the Bible says nothing about God creating time.  Because that would not make a damn bit of sense.

Next question.

So let me get this straight.  Time has no “time” of its beginning.  And therefore Creation itself has no “time” of its beginning.  Then how can you show that six days is actually six days?  If a day has no beginning (because beginning must be a function of time) then how can you measure it out so that a day is shown to be an actual day.  Twenty-four hours from NO TIME cannot possibly be shown to be twenty four hours.  Unless you concede that time is merely an arbitrary abstraction devised by man as a means of organizing his observable environment.  Do you concede?

No, because “six days” is in the Bible.  And the Bible is infallible.

*
*
*

Yes, readers…feel free to scream now.  I know I want to.

And so this is the insurmountable problem.  “Young” and “Old” are predicated on the idea of a beginning TIME which cannot ever be provided.  Since time was either created with the rest of Creation, or it was Created out of nothing, giving the start time as ZERO–as nothing–then there can be, by definition, no actual beginning to Creation.

And if you can’t say WHEN it began, it is impossible to declare how old, or young, the universe is.