mesocyclone: interesting handle…
Perhaps Einstein would disagree with the notion, but he had doubts about some of his own work, as you no doubt know, and there have been some doubts as to even the invariability of the speed of light.
As for sequentiality, it is a tool for analysis, not an end in itself. We use it as it is part of the perceptual frame in which we sense we exist. Also, the subject-verb-object structure of English is not suited to describing actuality, some other grammars relying more on verbs being more so. Sequentiality is not necessarily the overview final reality, that Reality being God, God being Eternal and Changeless. For a very interesting treasties on the subject, you might read, several times, David Bohm’s* Wholeness and the Implicate Order* and Franklin Merrell-Wolff’s
Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object as well.
All time existing at once would be consistent with the atemporal block universe idea as well as being a fulfillment of many of the “Omni-” atributes of Diety. It would also fit well with some non-faith based philosophical systems. As for time, here are some interesting quotes from Discovery magazine relative to time:
~
*
" “Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so,” joked Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Scientists aren’t laughing, though. Some speculative new physics theories suggest that time emerges from a more fundamental—and timeless—reality."
“Time has not been around forever. Most scientists believe it was created along with the rest of the universe in the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.”
“There may be an end of time. Three Spanish scientists posit that the observed acceleration of the expanding cosmos is an illusion caused by the slowing of time. According to their math, time may eventually stop, at which point everything will come to a standstill.”
“If the varying speed of light theory turns out to be right, light comes to a full stop at the very edge of the black hole; it freezes and never enters the hole. Moreover, since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light—even in Magueijo’s theory—all other motion halts at the black hole’s surface too. Nothing falls in. So black holes aren’t really holes after all.”
“Astronomers have recently discovered that the expansion rate of the universe seems to be accelerating, driven perhaps by the same vacuum energy that shaped the universe some 15 billion years ago. According to Magueijo’s calculations, this surge in the expansion rate is but a prelude to another stupendous infusion of energy from the vacuum in the far distant future. When that happens, the universe will essentially undergo another Big Bang. This sequence of Big Bang, expansion, Big Bang, would never end. If the varying speed of light theory is right, the universe is eternal.” *~~ Now isn’t that more consistent with the Eternality of God? God being Eternal, why would God’s Creation not be Eternal? Aren’t we being anthropocentric with our creation story in the same way the we were with the geocentric theory? And who was opposed to that?
~
“Modern” physics is referential to how we understand things at this infinitesimal moment in this, the galactic epoch of the universe. But even “modern” physics is entertaining such possibilities as a variable speed of light, as put forth by João Magueijo. His idea is gaining greater credibility, especially with the discovery of changes in the fine structure constant. It’s just to say that we don’t yet know everything, not being personally Gods.
You are right, metaphysical manipulations of quantum theory do not “reveal much about human nature,” but then ultimately neither do faith based religions. There is a good handbook on religious sanity that might be useful in thinking about this, as it covers all such as translation, meaning, abstracting, etc, etc, and introduces Korzybski’s “structural differential” into the consideration as a perceptual tool for examining the matter.
For a simple explanation of the derivation of 11, see
bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml But use any number you wish, (as I said-I *know *it is a guess) There is still the inseparability of anything from anything else as a concurrent phenomenon, which was my point, not the number of dimensions.
In May of 1969 at the All Nations Barber Shop in Fresno, CA, a barber and another man shot each other to death over “the true meaning of certain passages in the Bible” (
San Jose News, May 5, 1969) That is largely what religious interpretations are good for, as is evident even more strongly today. If we look at our lives, it is evident that misinterpretaion is our way of life. If we didn’t misinterpret, there would be far more agreement, as there is in that we can make cars and use electricity. However, we need the sense of security we derived originally from our parochial (in the secular sense) understandings of Nature and God. But we can’t afford to do that any more. Our world is at stake, and it is not our Catholic world, despite our strongest protestations. Odds are, looking at human nature, that however profound the formal philosophy of the Church is, it has some truth and some errror. Look at its “profound” history.
And what about “error in premise is error in conclusion.” That fits faith and your “profound set of formal philosophical reasoning” in the same sense that your “mathematical but not scientific” labeling does to theories. But all this is a teleological activity, as should be our inquiry into the actuality of our religous faith. I mean there is even evidence to suppose that Jesus studied in India, including an alleged 63 documents held by the Vatican that support this. For sure, if one accepts certain premisies of philosophies used in that land where there are miracles even unto resurrections, Jesus’ Identity statements are exactly congruent with theirs.
What if you drop, even for a moment, your Catholic prejudice, look at the situation, and whatever is true about the Church and the world will survive because it is
true, not because it is Catholic. In the mean time, be as completely wonderful a Catholic as you can. I do not see in conscience how you can do otherwise. I am only urging that we think in a larger framework than a particular belief system. Or is this posting only going to fit my theory that this section of the forum exists only to incite the “faithful,” by inquiry, into a deeper entrenchment in their habitual and only superficial, self-referentialy examined belief system?