 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Well, not in how the theory applied to the period of time before Planck time.
|
String theory works upon the basis of multi-dimensional strings vibrating to a specific "frequency" that forms the basis of subatomic particles in the universe. Call it the building blocks of building blocks. Different spatial dimensions and a meta-temporal dimension are created. It's similar to my "transdimensional theory" but I won't go into that here. Four dimensional time, in this universe, is only as old as the universe itself. It is absurd to attempt to take that back further to a non-linear time, when it only operates on a linear scale after the big bang! It's like measuring the diameter of a bubble before the bubble existed.
As for what went before, that is uncertain. Best evidence from Hawkings concession on Black holes is an extra dimensional realm, meaning our universe is expanding like a bubble in a glass of beer. Of course, not how you or I perceive it... indeed description is incommunicable where it is even comprehensible (which it isn't... almost like the most consistent definitions of God!  ). However, notwithstanding this, you cannot go from the uncertainty, and question of what went before, to a conclusion that God was behind it.
If indeed you assume that God was behind it, he could no more interact with this universe than you can perceive of a three or two dimensional lifeform... in our logical and temporal means of understanding, such a lifeform couldn't exist. Of course, as an objectivist, that means nothing to you so you'll find it hard to address it from that viewpoint.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
However, notwithstanding this, you cannot go from the uncertainty, and question of what went before, to a conclusion that God was behind it.
|
True, but to assert, as Skywalker does, that the universe necessarily follows the big bang theory goes far beyong this statement of uncertainty.
Science says nothing about whether God can act on the universe. It is simply outside the scope of science to prove such a thing.
quote:
If indeed you assume that God was behind it, he could no more interact with this universe than you can perceive of a three or two dimensional lifeform
|
We deal with things in lesser dimensions than ourselves all the time.
You are right that those of 1 dimension cannot perceive or fully understand things in 2 or more dimensions, and that this principle carries on in the same direction for both 2 and 3 dimensions. This is why we have problems understanding the true nature of God, because we can only understand the portion that is relevant to our own experience of objects in 3 dimensions.
So, while we may not be able to fully engage God, God can certainly engage us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Science says nothing about whether God can act on the universe. It is simply outside the scope of science to prove such a thing.
|
I don't concur. It is possible for science to establish logical barriers. For example, my four dimensional mind will never perceive a three-dimensional realm.
quote:
We deal with things in lesser dimensions than ourselves all the time.
|
No, we can manipulate them. This is very difficult to explain. Going on from Husserls time consciousness concept, we perceive the world in terms of time, it is a necessary condition for consciousness, perception, communication. If time did not exist, my life would be at once infinite and infinitesimal. A hypothetical 3D lifeform would not operate on our level. Our time to them would be like 5D time to us. What we consider a spatial dimension would be it's time. We cannot communicate because we can only manipulate it as a spatial dimension. Any change would fundamentally change its universe, say, a modification by me would change its history... time travel... whereby the sum-over-histories problem now applies.... it cannot know its past so communication is impossible between us and it.
quote:
So, while we may not be able to fully engage God, God can certainly engage us.
|
Assuming God, that would run contrary to the notion that he is infinite. However, that leaves open the possibility that God is a being of this universe of finite power, running the world like a puppet show through means that we cannot at this moment perceive but there is no logical barrier to us doing so. Of course, that wouldn't be acceptable to you, and is very easily refuted by some basic cosmology.
EDIT: Also assuming this, infinite God in four-dimensions would have to be finite in 5-dimensions. If it existed in any more (say, 6+), it wouldn't exists as a point of infinitesimal, or infinity to the 4D, nor us to him... just as there is no such thing as a two or one dimensional object to us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Are you suggesting that we know little of evolution and that there are even remotely good causes to undermine the theory of stellar and planetary genesis?
|
Yes, because of the limitations of our 'laboratory'.
We have theories of stellar evolution and star formation that we make by looking at the population counts.
It's like this. An alien with a very short lifespan, say a few minutes, comes to earth, and takes a quick snapshot in time of all the people on the earth. From this snapshot, the alien has to compile an account of the human lifespan, from birth, to death, by looking at all of these different people.
The same problems and assumptions inherent in such an approach also bedevil theories of stellar evolution and star formation.
Processes that happen relatively quickly, (such as star formation) and the collapse of stars, we know little about, because they happen so quickly, and we do not have examples of stars undergoing these processes that are also observable.
One of the biggest problems surrounding stellar evolution is that the most interesting parts occur inside the dust shell of a nebula, which obscures the process from direct observation.
quote:
Do you also think that empiricle studies are superior to theoretical?
|
False dilemma. Theory backed up by empirical evidence is stronger than theory alone.
quote:
You would say that our understanding of how the earth is formed, and evolution, is speculation?
|
Yes. We don't really know how the moon formed, so why should we anticipate our understanding of the Earth to be much greater?
quote:
What do you trust more, you're observance of nature, or mathematical logic?
|
Considering that mathematical logic led Descartes to formulate the doctrine of the Aether based on false presuppositions, I'll go with observance of nature. All theoreticians understand that without any empirical evidence, their theories may still be prone to amendments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Processes that happen relatively quickly, (such as star formation) and the collapse of stars, we know little about, because they happen so quickly, and we do not have examples of stars undergoing these processes that are also observable.
|
Do you know how scientific theory works? A theory is not merited so much by mechanism but by prediction. For the record, we have information on stars throughout their life cycles, except the point of extreme gravitational collapse. We have theories that fits the existing empiricle data perfectly, who's predictions match the results of the phenomena that we can see.
The problem with the alien analogy is that to translate it to us, it would mean we could only study one star.
quote:
Yes. We don't really know how the moon formed, so why should we anticipate our understanding of the Earth to be much greater?
|
Problematic. The two are completely different. We know almost certainly that all planetary bodies form through accretion. The creation of the moon poses different problems, similar to the existence of the oceans, for example. The fact that it is a large rock formed by accretion is accepted in that context.
quote:
Considering that mathematical logic led Descartes to formulate the doctrine of the Aether based on false presuppositions
|
I could formulate 4 from 8 - 6, which are false suppositions, that says nothing about the integrity of logic itself. However, you will note that logic and theory rests upon fewer and more fundamental assumptions than does empiricle observation. SUrely as an objectivist that would be plainly obvious to you?
quote:
All theoreticians understand that without any empirical evidence, their theories may still be prone to amendments.
|
To which theories do you refer? Which predictions do not hold? What logic is flawed given certain assumptions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
I don't concur. It is possible for science to establish logical barriers. For example, my four dimensional mind will never perceive a three-dimensional realm.
|
Umm. Okay.
I take it then that you don't understand geometry.
quote:
No, we can manipulate them. This is very difficult to explain. Going on from Husserls time consciousness concept, we perceive the world in terms of time, it is a necessary condition for consciousness, perception, communication.
|
Why? Consciousness need not exist in time, and could be said to exist unconstrained by time.
Perception is the same thing. We can perceive the world without time, as a still life, rather easily.
quote:
If time did not exist, my life would be at once infinite and infinitesimal.
|
That's one way to look at it. You would be a prism edge, if viewed from the side, as a infinite line, as viewed on the front, as a surface, corresponding to your profile.
So not really an infinitesimal, since you would still occupy the same space that you do now.
quote:
A hypothetical 3D lifeform would not operate on our level.
|
Very true, and this I said earlier.
quote:
Our time to them would be like 5D time to us.
|
Also true.
Now, if we can manipulate 3d objects, then why can't God manipulate us in the same way as we do these objects?
quote:
Assuming God, that would run contrary to the notion that he is infinite.
|
Why? All I say is that he is on a higher order than we. I do not presume to know the precision of his order.
quote:
However, that leaves open the possibility that God is a being of this universe of finite power, running the world like a puppet show through means that we cannot at this moment perceive but there is no logical barrier to us doing so.
|
No. It would be like the 3D object learning to work in our 4D world.
In all likelihood, impossible.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-09-2004 21:08
.
.
|