This statement: "There is no space or time that can ever exist that is not, already, a part of the whole."
That is an unknowable and an absurd statement. On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > Which statement was that? > > On Aug 25, 5:01 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm asking whomever posted that virtually absurd statement about space > > and time. > > > On Aug 25, 1:58 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Are you asking Pat? > > > > On Aug 25, 4:56 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm curious to know how you come to be in possession of such absolute > > > > knowledge about space and time? Was it revealed to you somehow? > > > > > On Aug 25, 9:05 am, 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? > > > > > > 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 - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
