On 25 Aug, 17:05, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is no space
> or time that can ever exist that is not, already, a part of the
> whole. And it is this point that I feel is vital to us understanding
> the true nature of the universe and our part in it.
>
> This is very relevant and rings true. But why does this preclude
> changeability? Why does this mean we cannot change past or future
> into parts as yet undiscovered?
>
We can change them only by moving them from 'that which is not
known by us' to 'that which is known to us'. The change is a change
of awareness OF them rather than any change of them. If we could see
ourselves from begining to end as one long worm from birth to death,
the entire worm-like object is that which we ARE, not any slice along
the way that we may be happening to look at at any given time. We see
ourselves in timed slices and think that, over time, we change; but
our existence as a 4-dimensional being will not change over time
because time is bound to it, as it is with all 4-dimensional objects
(where 3 dimensions are spatial and 1 temporal).
> On Aug 25, 11:43 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Aug, 15:58, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Pat,
>
> > > What is your source for the contention that the space-time continuum
> > > referred to by physicists means a continuum with defined endpoints? I
> > > agree that the word "continuum" often means something with defined
> > > endpoints, but as far as I am aware, its usage in the phrase "space-
> > > time continuum does not."
>
> > But it does. Have a look at this
> > link:http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html
>
> > But don't confuse 'missing points' with 'undiscovered points'.
> > From our perspective, the entire future is filled with undiscovered
> > points (thus appearing open), and there are many undiscovered points
> > in the past. But, within the whole of the continuum, none of its
> > points are missing.
>
> > > I think that the theory of relativity holds that we can see things
> > > that happened far in the past (e.g., when we see an object that is 4
> > > light years away, we are seeing how it looked 4 years ago), but not
> > > the future. As far as I kow, according to modern physics, the future
> > > hasn't happened yet. Do you have more information?
>
> > Yes. You're mistaken about modern physics' view about the future.
> > At least since Einstein. The fact of a space-time continuum implies
> > that the continuum contains all of space and time. There is no space
> > or time that can ever exist that is not, already, a part of the
> > whole. And it is this point that I feel is vital to us understanding
> > the true nature of the universe and our part in it.
>
> > > On Aug 25, 6:38 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 24 Aug, 16:36, showmethehoney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Pat, how can continuum have ends points defined?
>
> > > > How can it not? A continuum is defined by its ends. For example, a
> > > > line (a 1-dimensional entity) can be viewed as a continuum of points
> > > > (zero-dimensional entities) from the beginning of the line to its
> > > > end. Along the line, there are no missing points, i.e., the line is
> > > > continuous. So, too, our space-time continuum is continuous from
> > > > beginning to end with no missing points. The philosophical
> > > > implications of us living in a space-time continuum are enormous, as
> > > > it means that our conventional view of a future open to possibilities
> > > > is simply not realistic/accurate. Einstein knew this, but only
> > > > mentioned it rarely. To believe that the future is mutable is the
> > > > modern-day equivalent of still believing the Earth is flat. We have
> > > > to come to a new understanding of the universe and humanity's role in
> > > > it and that will not happen until we've removed the comforting
> > > > blindfolds we 'prefer'.
>
> > > > > On Aug 24, 8:22 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 24 Aug, 12:51, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > So, let me get this straight. You have a philosophy that, in
> > > > > > > > philosophy, absolute truths are impossible. How do you get
> > > > > > > > past the
> > > > > > > > dichotomy of having such a contradictory absoloute truth in your
> > > > > > > > philosophy? Alternatively, if you back off from the statement
> > > > > > > > and say
> > > > > > > > that your statement above is only a relative truth, it, then,
> > > > > > > > logically allows for absolute truths to exist and {that they
> > > > > > > > could} be
> > > > > > > > duly ignored by you. Tricky stuff, Ian. Personally, I don't
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > you've stated your whole case, here.
>
> > > > > > > Heh I think Pat that if you do not belive in a creator God then
> > > > > > > Ian's
> > > > > > > strance is going to be the best you will get.
>
> > > > > > > Many of Ian's ilke may well (and justified too I believe) accuse
> > > > > > > people like you and I of being philosophicly lazy, that we
> > > > > > > practice a
> > > > > > > kind of philosphy of the gaps, that we do not like to work out the
> > > > > > > hard question of the absolute and so we call it God and have done
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > it. I don't think it is an acusation that we can easily defend
> > > > > > > against, do you?
>
> > > > > > I think I've been fairly diligent in my attempts to discover the
> > > > > > truth about the One (not that I'm finished, yet!!). In order to
> > > > > > defend against the rallying cry of those who offer no comprehensive
> > > > > > alternative, one must proceed from the point of ontology. Once
> > > > > > we've
> > > > > > determined what it is that exists, THEN we can look at what it can
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > and how it does it. The answer to all the 'why' questions to which
> > > > > > atheists would have you believe there are no reasonable answers,
> > > > > > leaves them only a pool of 'unreasonable answers' from which to
> > > > > > choose
> > > > > > and futher blocks progress.
> > > > > > One of the main arguments against God is that atheists see no
> > > > > > evidence that the universe is teleological, i.e., that it is heading
> > > > > > in a particular direction with goals at the end. They overlook the
> > > > > > FACT that we exist in a space-time continuum. The continuum
> > > > > > contains
> > > > > > ALL the past, present and future; that is, the ends are already
> > > > > > defined (as is all the middle). If the ends are already defined,
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > the universe is, most definitely teleological, and the stumbling
> > > > > > block
> > > > > > (of no teleology) crumbles into dust before the weight of one stone
> > > > > > (Einstein).
> > > > > > My main point was that it should be obvious that some absolute
> > > > > > truths exist. Some of these may not be particularly useful until
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > extends them. Einstein looked for truth and found special (and
> > > > > > general) relativity. Absolute truths are, usually, things like
> > > > > > physical constants. But it is how those truths work together and
> > > > > > allow for the relativity in between that muddies the water and makes
> > > > > > the absolutes seem less important or obscure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
