Time As A Concept.

[par4dcourse]

Entropy increase marks the direction of time.

 

I'm not argueing against that point. What I am argueing against is that entropy leads to disorder.

 

Fair enough, I am a learner, not a teacher.

 

At the moment just before the big bang, since there was no entropy, do you think "time" existed?

 

[Rev R]

Here is video that explains these concepts.

 

excellent! thanks

[Deva]

Thank you for the video Stucker. You are certainly correct about human perception of time being inconsistent. It sure is. The whole thing seems bizarre to me. Like the video said, it isn't a straight line as it appears to be.

[skepticalme]

Entropy increase marks the direction of time.

 

I'm not argueing against that point. What I am argueing against is that entropy leads to disorder.

 

Fair enough, I am a learner, not a teacher.

 

At the moment just before the big bang, since there was no entropy, do you think "time" existed?

 

 

No, the expansion of space-time IS the Big Bang. They are coterminous. As such, there is no "before" the BIg Bang. This is a mistake a lot of people make when visulazing the Big Bang. They picture an explosion happening spontaniously in a void. This is not the case, there is no void and there is not time. Even televisiosn documentaries display it inaccurately, in there defense though, there really isn't any other way to do so. You have to keep in the back of your mind that they are showing it in a very abstract manner. In the sub-plank universe, or singularity as some people call it, time has no meaning. Eternity in an instant, is probably he best way our language can describe it. To help illustate this, imagine you could fall into the singularity of a black hole and survive. If you looked back as you are falling you would watch the heat death of the universe. You would see the universe fast forward by hundreds of billions then trillions of years in what seems like seconds to you. In fact, you would never reach the singularity because the black hole would evaporate due to Hawking radiation before you got there which take a google years to happen. I've always wondered, is a black hole evaporating due to Hawking radiation a Big Bang in miniature since, to the singularity, the process is happening instantly. As it evaporates it would expand out to the Schwarzschild radius roughly mirroring the expansion phase of our universe were it expanded at faster than the speed of light. After that point it would become luminous and energy would have a low enought density that it could form back into matter.

[Antlerman]

Ok Antlerman, my bad for defining the terms I used in my message to Valk. Mea culpa!

 

Hence the need to respond to your post. What you say is valid, but because I didn't define my terminology and cite the right sources, there's a degree of misunderstanding between us. I hope this will help.

Sorry I had missed this response. I'll get to it now.

 

 

As a Multiversalist, I use the words, 'eternal' and 'infinite' in the context of theories like these... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation ...where an eternally-existing domain of self-reproducing universes creates an infinite quantity of such continua. This process has no beginning and will have no end, so in that sense, it is eternal. It is also infinite, in that the number (quantity) and spatial dimension (size or volume) of these universes are beyond counting and beyond measurement.

Sounds like God in motion.

 

Also, the Big Bang event is not considered to be the origin of anything but our universe. Other universes that came to be 'before' ours and others that will come to be 'after' ours will experience their own Big Bangs, which will resemble ours and also appear to be the origination of only these universes. I use the terms 'before' and 'after' lightly, for obvious reasons. Applying any kind of temporal or spatial frame of reference to these concepts is a difficult matter, at the best of times! (Joke!)

So if you measure time as points of change, then time is eternally in motion; eternally as in infinite time?

 

Since this forum is called Ex-Christian.net, since there are many Ex-Xians here and since Christian apologists often debate with us, I therefore couched my message to Valk in accordance with these facts.

Well, many, if not most Christian ideas are childlike. That sometimes what I might say might sound like something they would agree with, so what? A favorite quote of mine states that truth is often a handmaiden to error so that it often may come upon us unaware. I don't limit how I might go to understand reality if it means it sounds like it might be something a religion also says. They shoot themselves in the foot plenty fine when they try to take any valid truths they might see and apply to anything truly useful. I'm of the impression that the further we go in knowledge and understanding, the less such a sharp line there will be between the spiritual and rational understandings, to the point they are not at odds at all. Certainly, what you or I see in their Storybook version of things falls short in this regard.

 

Christians assert that God created the universe with a specific purpose, for the express benefit of us humans. They place humanity at the center of reality and conclude that everything astronomers discover, "declares the glory of the Lord". This position is unacceptably anthropomorphic, arrogant, selfish and self-centered.

Well, yes. In the grand scheme of things, it does appear rather childlike in concept. The world revolving around us, has in fact us as our own focus of value and importance. This is what children through early adolescence do, until they begin to recognize their own place in the greater world. Same with our worldviews as society. And frankly, even in our technological and scientific advanced states at this stage of our evolution, we still see ourselves as all important! Religious or not! So I cut them a little slack, since even the rationalist is very much still arrogant, selfish and self-centered. Worldviews and social change is not going to occur through scientific advancement, but through personal growth and development.

 

I don't see that why a Christian who sees God much like a Sunday School child might think of Noah and his magic giraffe boat fits the reality means that what they try to interpret through the use of those symbols, negates a potential reality beyond the simple imagery, any more than why the limits of science negates a naturalist understanding in the whole picture for humanity. This swerves off into another discussion we might choose to have at another time...

 

God is an unnecessary requirement, His role as Creator and Sustainer, being supplanted by a natural process, as described by the theory. Thus, Christian apologetic arguments, appeals to supernaturalism, the KCA or advocacy of the Big Bang as the "Genesis' moment of creation, are swept aside by the growing body of hard evidence and data that supports Mutliversalism.

The way Christians understand God is undermined by a new and greater understanding. I agree. I also recognize that Christians don't have the end all be all way of understanding God (hardly so), and that say, "Well, if science doesn't support that way of understanding, then there is no God", is to grant the Christian view the power of authority on all things "God". I personally find no conflict with what you say here of processes and evolution and how I see things.

 

 

(continued....)

[Antlerman]

(...continued - I hate these quote limits!)

 

Sounds to me like a Creative Reality.

Really?

 

Isn't the word' creative' inherently anthropomorphic too?

Not really. I suppose you could say things have a potential to self-organize into greater complex organisms and systems with greater depth. But I call that "creating". I suppose it's a human world we use to describe that organizing principle, but I don't have an issue with saying that about nature, that it is inherently creative in that it brings about higher orders. But I don't entirely agree it is just pure random odds. I see that there is built into the system a repeatable process that drives it towards this. If it follows a pattern, then it doesn't seem very random to me.

 

It doesn't matter though because even so, I disagree strongly with any who would imagine a God who actively manipulates the specifics to evolve specific forms, i.e., us as humans. No. We are one of a near infinite manifest forms of this Universe, regardless of the form. We are also ones which self-reflect. We are ones which evolved mind and express consciousness with symbolic realities, etc. That's pretty marvelous! But we are not the reason for this, if there is any reason you could say other than it being a simple infinite state of its Ultimate Beingness. The material is not all there is in this Multiverse, or simply this Universe if that's all there is. I tend to prefer your understanding, with my understanding.

 

 

I make no such claims in promoting Multiversalism. The process of spontaneous universe-creation is devoid of meaning, purpose, intelligence, intellect, will, personality....

Until we arise within it! So if we arise within it, then does not the potential exist with it itself, in its simplest forms? Are we not made of atoms? Yet are we atoms, or something more? A product of the Universe that emerges from it ground potentials? And if we are here in this form, with all our depth and complexities that grew from within it, then what potentials above us are yet to be manifest? Is there an indication of that within us, as there is within everything before us that became us? You see?

 

It has as much meaning as the erosion of rocks by wind and water.

Do you feel that way about your mother and father, your family, your loved ones, your life? Do you feel that way about your participation with the World and with yourself? Are they products of this world too as the rocks, wind, and water? I will grant to do attempt to place some sort of 'thought intent' behind everything in the manner a Christian might with their view of God, can lead to questions of contradiction. For me personally, the meaning it Itself. That's hard to express, but that statement is certainly not without meaning...

 

It has as much intelligence as the fusion of hydrogen into helium in the core of a star in the Andromeda galaxy.

If you are going to define intelligence anthropomorphically in the sense of human cognitive thought processes, then of course it's not "thinking"... "I'm a happy atom, boy I'm lonely... ohhh you're cute! Let's merge!" (Queue the lights and music, flash.... a star is born!). If however you say that it "intelligently" organizes into predictable patterns, then yes, the universe acts intelligently. Or if you wish... the fact that our intelligence arose from it, shows the potential exists within it; and if so, then it exists in all of it, even if not manifest to the degree of complexity and organization as our intelligence as humans is! If you however believe it just suddenly appeared like a flash out of pure nothingness into our brains, then that frankly sounds much more like the Special Creation of Miracles than anything actually scientific! "Poof" there something in existence out of NOTHING. That defines Creationism, not Evolution.

 

(continued....)

[Antlerman]

(...continued)

 

That is to say, none at all.

Except for us, of course who were special magic creations that didn't evolve. Our consciousness and intelligence appeared ex-nihilo!

 

So when I say that we were bound to exist, I do so without recourse to any kind of humano-centricism, anthropomorphism or supernaturalism. We were bound to exist, simply as the statistical expression of an ongoing natural process. Given infinite resources and infinite opportunities, nature was bound to bring us blindly and purposelessly into existence. That is all. No over-arching scheme or plan or meaning.

Sounds to me almost like you equate one belief with the other; that if there is 'intent' inherent in the system, that somehow this means the god Jehovah is true! I simply don't equate things this way.

 

 

Game over!

And begins.

 

 

Now to add some thoughts to human reference of time that might be of interest for discussion. Anthropologically speaking human's understanding, views of reality in regard to time has shifted over the course of our evolution. As early man roamed as hunter/gatherer, there was no thought to next year, next season, or even next week. It was next day, eat, stay alive, survive. The sense of self was earth-bound, the cycle of eating and surviving, one with the eco-system. As agricultural societies developed, the view of their reality in relation to time shifted to a cyclical reality. Live till next season, plan, store, end and begin again with the rise of the new cycle. Time was cyclical. Self was identified as part of this cycle of seasons.

 

Then as societies began to accumulate and distribute wealth and power, man's view of himself shifted to his domain, the sense of his own continuation into the years, symbolically linked to his power, his name, his wealth, his domain. Man became king of his own castle, and his "self" continued through his children, his heirs, etc. He now viewed himself in time as a linear line, from the present into the long distant future beyond just the next cycle. A continuation of self symbolically linked to linear time. Then with the rise of religious myths, that sense of "self" projected onto a linear view of time, took the form of eternal cities, a continuation of life on earth. A celestial paradise where they would never die, and all of it rooted in man's sense of self in ideas of time.

 

In my view, there is only now, timeless Reality. This is "eternity" and there is no after or before. Everything in human experience and perception of time has to do with their sense of a separate "self". At the end of self, death of that distinction, is in fact to dissolve time into the present, into simple Reality, or Being.

 

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your view of an eternal, timeless now, if this concept is monolithic and changeless. Multiversalism advocates a process and any process must involve change. Ummm...we seem to have entered the territory of Xeno's Arrow here. So, are you advocating a changeless reality or something else? Please specify, as I'm genuinely curious.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I'm not speaking of eternal within a time context - that of things in motion. I'm speaking stepping out of time itself, into the eternal, ever present now. This is a state of conscious mind, not of physical presence. Now I could argue that within your Mulitiverse reality, there is that very ever present Now, and that it it an understand that, like your Multiverse reality is exposing, is yet to be fully realized. I consider that the future personally, as part of that potential yet unrealized, just as we are now a fuller realization of these potentials of the Universe/Multiverse/Reality than the early levels of simple matter, or being.

 

I like your thoughts, I see more yet to come....

 

 

P.S. It's much easier reading your responses not in blue color....

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for your reply Antlerman.

 

(I'll lay off the blue text for now in favor of a different font, ok?)

 

Ok Antlerman, my bad for defining the terms I used in my message to Valk. Mea culpa!

 

Hence the need to respond to your post. What you say is valid, but because I didn't define my terminology and cite the right sources, there's a degree of misunderstanding between us. I hope this will help.

Sorry I had missed this response. I'll get to it now.

 

 

As a Multiversalist, I use the words, 'eternal' and 'infinite' in the context of theories like these... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation ...where an eternally-existing domain of self-reproducing universes creates an infinite quantity of such continua. This process has no beginning and will have no end, so in that sense, it is eternal. It is also infinite, in that the number (quantity) and spatial dimension (size or volume) of these universes are beyond counting and beyond measurement.

Sounds like God in motion.

 

It might sound like it, but it isn't. We're talking pure math and pure statistics here. There's no need to anthropomorphize, personify, deify or supernaturalize what is simply a natural, impersonal process.

 

Also, the Big Bang event is not considered to be the origin of anything but our universe. Other universes that came to be 'before' ours and others that will come to be 'after' ours will experience their own Big Bangs, which will resemble ours and also appear to be the origination of only these universes. I use the terms 'before' and 'after' lightly, for obvious reasons. Applying any kind of temporal or spatial frame of reference to these concepts is a difficult matter, at the best of times! (Joke!)

So if you measure time as points of change, then time is eternally in motion; eternally as in infinite time?

 

Yes, Antlerman... that's 'if' I do that.

Here's where I need help. The Multiverse is considered to be forever changing on a local scale, bringing forth new universes, which themselves bring forth new universes and so on. Yet, it's also considered to be eternal on a wider scale, because it had no origin, as we understand that word. So it's both changing (locally) and changeless (non-locally). Got a headache yet? I know I have!

Since this forum is called Ex-Christian.net, since there are many Ex-Xians here and since Christian apologists often debate with us, I therefore couched my message to Valk in accordance with these facts.

Well, many, if not most Christian ideas are childlike. That sometimes what I might say might sound like something they would agree with, so what? A favorite quote of mine states that truth is often a handmaiden to error so that it often may come upon us unaware. I don't limit how I might go to understand reality if it means it sounds like it might be something a religion also says. They shoot themselves in the foot plenty fine when they try to take any valid truths they might see and apply to anything truly useful. I'm of the impression that the further we go in knowledge and understanding, the less such a sharp line there will be between the spiritual and rational understandings, to the point they are not at odds at all. Certainly, what you or I see in their Storybook version of things falls short in this regard.

 

Yes and no.

Yes to everything you say, except this... 'the spiritual and rational understandings'

Rational I can deal with. But what do you mean by using the word, 'spiritual'?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

 

Christians assert that God created the universe with a specific purpose, for the express benefit of us humans. They place humanity at the center of reality and conclude that everything astronomers discover, "declares the glory of the Lord". This position is unacceptably anthropomorphic, arrogant, selfish and self-centered.

Well, yes. In the grand scheme of things, it does appear rather childlike in concept. The world revolving around us, has in fact us as our own focus of value and importance.

 

Agreed.

 

This is what children through early adolescence do, until they begin to recognize their own place in the greater world. Same with our worldviews as society. And frankly, even in our technological and scientific advanced states at this stage of our evolution, we still see ourselves as all important! Religious or not!

 

Agreed too!

 

So I cut them a little slack, since even the rationalist is very much still arrogant, selfish and self-centered. Worldviews and social change is not going to occur through scientific advancement, but through personal growth and development.

 

Personal growth and develpoment are key factors, but scientific advancement cannot be ignored or denied, either on a personal, congregational or denominational level. Well, actually it can, if you're a Creationist or similar. As we've seen with the stonewall denialism of Raykidude, the more they do it, the dumber and more paranoid they come across.

 

Anyway, imho such scientific advances as Genetics, Relativity and Evolution do influence worldviews and do foster social change. If they didn't, why do Christian apologists point to these things as corrupting influences on society? How many debates have we seen about how these things have undermined morality, giving rise to atheistic regimes, world wars and similar? Are the apologists right, then? Do these scientific advancements change national and global communities? I'd say they do, but I wouldn't go so far as to agree with the Christians as to how.

 

Your thoughts, AM?

 

I don't see that why a Christian who sees God much like a Sunday School child might think of Noah and his magic giraffe boat fits the reality means that what they try to interpret through the use of those symbols, negates a potential reality beyond the simple imagery, any more than why the limits of science negates a naturalist understanding in the whole picture for humanity. This swerves off into another discussion we might choose to have at another time...

 

Ah yes, but this potential reality of yours - what if it's adequately described by the methodology of science? That is, confirmed predictions that are based upon mathematical models, which are derived from observations and measurements? All shaped and held together by logic and reason?

 

Why would it need to be anything else? Something, dare I say it... "spiritual"?

 

God is an unnecessary requirement, His role as Creator and Sustainer, being supplanted by a natural process, as described by the theory. Thus, Christian apologetic arguments, appeals to supernaturalism, the KCA or advocacy of the Big Bang as the "Genesis' moment of creation, are swept aside by the growing body of hard evidence and data that supports Mutliversalism.

The way Christians understand God is undermined by a new and greater understanding. I agree. I also recognize that Christians don't have the end all be all way of understanding God (hardly so), and that say, "Well, if science doesn't support that way of understanding, then there is no God", is to grant the Christian view the power of authority on all things "God". I personally find no conflict with what you say here of processes and evolution and how I see things.

 

Sorry friend, but I can't agree with this.

 

I'd rephrase your quote to read, "Well, if science doesn't support any other way of understanding reality, then there is simply no need for any other modes of understanding." The words, 'modes of understanding' covers everything else except the scientific description of reality. Thus, no power is given to anyone or anything. Christian, Muslim, Deist, Buddhist, Hindu, Pantheist, anthing at all. Any other paradigms are rendered mute and useless and redundant.

 

Here's an example.

With a Multiverse, there's no need to invoke a supernatural explanation for the existence of anything. There's no need to invoke such sophistry as the KCA, any kind of personal Creator or any kind of impersonal creating force/principle/agency. The Multiverse has always "been" and always will "be". Being an infinity of infinites, ALL possibilities are realized, not just once or twice or billions of times, but infinitely many times.

 

Therefore, just as there's no requirement for any kind of over-arching intelligence to initiate or create it, there's also no need for anyone or anything to guide or run it. Nothing is favored over anything else. Not intelligence, not karma, not conscience, not nirvana, not life, not morality, not meaning, not consciousness, not authority, not the collective unconscious, not anything and not nothing. It's all numbers.

 

We humans are simply a statistical expression of an impersonal natural process, just as evolution is an unguided, impersonal natural process.

 

Now Antlerman, do you still find no conflict between what I say here about processes and how you see things?

 

(I'm not being hostile, it's just that my take on reality is that it's totally impersonal and devoid of meaning. Not everyone can accept this.)

(continued....)

[Antlerman]

I've moved this topic to the Colosseum which I'd been considering from the outset. I'll get to a response as time permits, and no, I don't see a conflict, only with your philosophical interpretations.

[bornagainathiest]

Good move Antlerman!

 

I'm on a bit of a tight time-budget myself, so my responses will be on an asap basis too.

 

Nevertheless, thanks for an interesting dialog - this is fun!

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Back again, Antlerman!

 

(...continued - I hate these quote limits!)

 

Sounds to me like a Creative Reality.

Really?

 

Isn't the word' creative' inherently anthropomorphic too?

Not really. I suppose you could say things have a potential to self-organize into greater complex organisms and systems with greater depth. But I call that "creating". I suppose it's a human world we use to describe that organizing principle, but I don't have an issue with saying that about nature, that it is inherently creative in that it brings about higher orders. But I don't entirely agree it is just pure random odds. I see that there is built into the system a repeatable process that drives it towards this. If it follows a pattern, then it doesn't seem very random to me.

 

Perceived randomness vs. order isn't the issue here. Nor are actual states of randomness and/or order. Nor are potential states of randomness and/or order.

 

I think that there's a fundamental point you're not quite grasping here, AM.

 

In a Multiversal infinity of infinities, such things as chaos, order, emergent systems, organizing principles, repeatable processes and this thing you call, "creating" are all blindly and continually produced without favor or bias. So if you perceive some organizing principle at work, you're only doing so because such a thing is bound to arise as a 100% statistical certainty. The fact that it does arise is not significant and means nothing. In a Multiverse, ALL possibilities arise without favor or bias. It's just an inherent function of infinite resources and infinite opportunities, doing their thing. That's all. Nothing more than that and nothing less.

 

Do you follow?

 

It doesn't matter though because even so, I disagree strongly with any who would imagine a God who actively manipulates the specifics to evolve specific forms, i.e., us as humans. No. We are one of a near infinite manifest forms of this Universe, regardless of the form. We are also ones which self-reflect. We are ones which evolved mind and express consciousness with symbolic realities, etc. That's pretty marvelous! But we are not the reason for this, if there is any reason you could say other than it being a simple infinite state of its Ultimate Beingness.

 

"Ultimate Beingness?" Please explain this term. Thanks.

 

The material is not all there is in this Multiverse, or simply this Universe if that's all there is.

 

Sorry friend, here's where we diverge.

The material (actually the duality of matter/energy) IS all there is in the Multiverse. Please remember that in a Multiverse ALL possible states and conditions are fully realized. 'All' includes other universes identical and/or similar to ours, as well as radically different ones - universes of different spatial dimensions, universes where the governing physical constants are very different from ours, other domains where the proportions of ordinary and dark matter are markedly different from the values we know of, etc., etc.

 

So, the organizing principles you think you see in our universe may not hold good in all or even many other regions. There really is no reason to cite a preference for anything over anything, when talking about the Multiverse. Ditto for any cosmic 'potential' that you might think favors intelligence and self-awareness. Ditto for any over-arching themes, manifestations, guiding forces or anything at all. Any bias or favor that you think see could just be you imposing your own preferences by unconscious pattern-forming. Don't fret! Doing this is a natural enough human behavior. We all do it at one time or another.

 

I tend to prefer your understanding, with my understanding.

 

Hmmm... I'm not so sure that our wavelengths are perfectly tuned here.

 

I make no such claims in promoting Multiversalism. The process of spontaneous universe-creation is devoid of meaning, purpose, intelligence, intellect, will, personality....

Until we arise within it! So if we arise within it, then does not the potential exist with it itself, in its simplest forms? Are we not made of atoms? Yet are we atoms, or something more? A product of the Universe that emerges from it ground potentials? And if we are here in this form, with all our depth and complexities that grew from within it, then what potentials above us are yet to be manifest? Is there an indication of that within us, as there is within everything before us that became us? You see?

 

I see that you place some kind of special value on the innate potential within reality to produce complex life like us.

 

Nope! Can't agree with you on that. So let me re-state my p.o.v., in the hope that it will clarify matters.

 

This potential you think you see is simply a meaningless statistical expression of a blind, impersonal process that favors nothing over anything else. There is no 'higher' or 'deeper' or 'better' meaning to be be extracted from nature. We impose these values on an indifferent reality, that's all. There is no unifying or vital principle to be found in the behavior of atoms or galaxies. Nothing that will have any influence on human nature, other than that which we accord to it. We err if we think that there is any greater truth to be found 'out there' (pointing up to the sky) or 'in here' (pointing to my head), because we are the first, last and only arbiters of what the truth actually is. It's a human word, created by humans to describe human thoughts and feelings.

 

The fact that we can use our thoughts to understand the reality we inhabit does not point to any significant 'truth' either. Once again, this is just a product of that blind, statistical process that caused our universe to exist, a universe that just happened to be organized in such a way that we evolved to where we are now.

 

Is you understanding still with my understanding, AM?

 

It has as much meaning as the erosion of rocks by wind and water.

Do you feel that way about your mother and father, your family, your loved ones, your life? Do you feel that way about your participation with the World and with yourself? Are they products of this world too as the rocks, wind, and water? I will grant to do attempt to place some sort of 'thought intent' behind everything in the manner a Christian might with their view of God, can lead to questions of contradiction. For me personally, the meaning it Itself. That's hard to express, but that statement is certainly not without meaning...

 

Curiously enough, I've been touching on the role of feelings and emotions in another forum and what I've written there seems to fit right here, so I'll link to it and let you read what I say, ok?

 

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-2002.html

 

For the sake of context, you might like to watch the video and also follow the other link to the Dennet paper.

 

It has as much intelligence as the fusion of hydrogen into helium in the core of a star in the Andromeda galaxy.

If you are going to define intelligence anthropomorphically in the sense of human cognitive thought processes, then of course it's not "thinking"... "I'm a happy atom, boy I'm lonely... ohhh you're cute! Let's merge!" (Queue the lights and music, flash.... a star is born!). If however you say that it "intelligently" organizes into predictable patterns, then yes, the universe acts intelligently. Or if you wish... the fact that our intelligence arose from it, shows the potential exists within it; and if so, then it exists in all of it, even if not manifest to the degree of complexity and organization as our intelligence as humans is! If you however believe it just suddenly appeared like a flash out of pure nothingness into our brains, then that frankly sounds much more like the Special Creation of Miracles than anything actually scientific! "Poof" there something in existence out of NOTHING. That defines Creationism, not Evolution.

 

(continued....)

 

No. I'm not proposing magic or Creationism or anything like that.

 

What seems to be happening here is that you are according a special value to such things as intelligence, complexity and organization, thereby dividing reality into two parts - a special part and an ordinary part. If something demonstrates intelligence, self-reflection, complexity, etc., it is somehow special and somehow different from the ordinary parts of reality, like...

...rocks being eroded by wind and water or crystals arranging themselves in cooling lava or atoms fusing in the core of a star.

I chose those examples carefully Antlerman, to show that nothing is preferred over anything else in the Multiverse. I don't agree with the dichotomy you're using. There's nothing special about intelligence. Nor does it require an act of Special Creation to cause it to exist. Nor have I said that anything at all arises out of NOTHING.

 

What I have said is this...

 

The Multiverse, being eternal and infinite will automatically and blindly bring about the continuous realization of ALL possibilities - intelligence included. New universes continually arise, not out of NOTHING, but out of the infinite potential that has been, is and always will be latent in the Multiverse. In these new universes, intelligence will arise, not out of NOTHING, but simply out of potential in matter and energy to organize themselves in certain ways. These 'ways' are not favored or special. There will be zillions of dead universes out there, where intelligence didn't arise. Likewise, there will zillions where it did. It's just a numbers game, without limits.

 

Yes, we do seem to be diverging somewhat.

Specifically over the point of the 'special' status you give to intelligence and the division you therefore make between what is special and what is not.

 

Are we clear on this, AM?

If you are to come on board with me and agree...

 

* That the Multiverse blindly and impersonally causes all possible permutations of reality to exist

* That anything at all in reality (intelligence included) exists purely as a function of statistics

* That nothing is favored over anything else

 

...then you really must drop the special status you accord to intelligence, to complexity or to anything.

 

Multiversalism is the ultimate level playing field.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

Multiversalism. I like that.

 

<--- See under "Any Gods"

[Antlerman]

...then you really must drop the special status you accord to intelligence, to complexity or to anything.

I'll wait till you finish all the responses to my 3-part reply before working on my thoughts (unless you're done here). In the meantime however, I'll say I see an awful lot of projecting what you imagine my thoughts are. How you frame my thoughts are almost like something I would imagine a creationist might think, and then you proceed to dismantle those thoughts of theirs.

 

There is a special status to all things, and intelligence is and does have its place in the whole. It is special. So is our biology. So is the rock. I'm also glad you agree that intelligence arises from the potential of the Universe (I'll just use that to describe all of it - the mulitiverse if you will). Everything we are is an expression or manifestation of that potential - including intelligence, and furthermore consciousness itself, which is exposed in manifest forms. It's potential exists within and throughout everything it seems then, since it did not arise out of nothing.

 

Where I'll diverge with you philosophically, which this is, is that I do see that a greater degree of that realized potential of the Universe, is in fact to expose a greater depth of it and to create a greater degree of insight into that Nature. That does have value to that unfolding of our emerging awareness. And if that means nothing to you, than this is simply going to be a matter of personal interests and values. I can and do see profound beauty in the mundane, and I also see a greater expression of it in the more complex forms, such as the human in all its shades and subtleties.

 

A treasure of special deeper value, does not make all others insignificant. Not to me anyway. If you don't see distinctions, then it's how you respond to the world, as opposed to how I do and choose to pursue a further depth of understanding and appreciation of it through that response. Somehow, I doubt though that you view the grain of sand and a child as equals. Not too many humans I know do. To me I view that grain of sand as beauty, and the human as a marvel - and the Universe as the Source of All, and its Realization. Your vision of it appears to lack that, or perhaps better stated, doesn't account for it.

 

I look forward to deviling into your points later.....

[Phanta]

Even if there is objective time, we are still limited regarding our perception of it by the capacity of our brains, and our type of brains, for that matter.

[par4dcourse]

Even if there is objective time, we are still limited regarding our perception of it by the capacity of our brains, and our type of brains, for that matter.

 

Agree. Not only is time subjective to the brain, seeming to slow down or speed up under different circumstances, it also objectively changes with the relative speed of the observer/ observed and in strong gravitational fields.

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

...then you really must drop the special status you accord to intelligence, to complexity or to anything.

I'll wait till you finish all the responses to my 3-part reply before working on my thoughts (unless you're done here). In the meantime however, I'll say I see an awful lot of projecting what you imagine my thoughts are. How you frame my thoughts are almost like something I would imagine a creationist might think, and then you proceed to dismantle those thoughts of theirs.

 

Yes! You're absolutley right Antlerman and I was wrong to be such a projectionist. Sorry about that!

 

This kind of projection is a defensive reflex of mine and I should be firmer with myself about it.

So why did I get defensive in the first place? Well, I think I can sum it up like this.

 

1.

Imho, certain words have not only their usual, accepted meanings, but also other, implied meanings. Seeing as we often use language sloppily, we therefore have to be doubly careful about how we use it here, where smart and keen-eyed Theists will pick up on it and punish us for our linguistic laziness or lack of clarity. Rayskidude and LNC have done this to me and I'm now trying to put my house in order, by tightening up on my word usage.

 

2.

Therefore AM, when I've seen you use certain, meaning-loaded words I've wrongly assumed that you meant them in a fuzzy, careless or unneccesarily anthropomorphic way. Which words? Well there's...

* Creative.

You call what the Multiverse does, "creating" - and that's ok. But do you see the implied meanings that make Create, Created, Creative, Creation and Creativity so fraught with traps, loopholes and snares? A Theist will argue that to use any of the above is to imply the existence of a Creator. So, saying that the Multiverse is, 'creating' plays right into the Apologist's hands, even though you might actually mean that it is simply doing so as a natural, non-intelligent process. The Theist can take what you said (but didn't actually mean) and turn the loaded meaning of the word 'creating' to their advantage. Sorry friend, but that's what I thought you were doing - implying that the universe was somehow intelligently creating, when you probably didn't mean that at all.

You didn't mean that, did you? But can you also see how using that word unwisely could be turned against you?

* Ultimate Beingness

Ummm... same again, really. 'Being' has a whole load of unwelcome and unwanted implications to it. The existence and life of a living 'being' can be construed from it and an,'Ultimate being', well, isn't that just another way of describing God? Sorry to be pedantic here, AM, but am I right in thinking that you didn't mean to imply that either?

* the Universe as the Source of All, and it's Realization

Unless you specify that you don't mean it anthropomorphically, isn't a Theist just going to say that it always takes an intelligence or mind to realize anything? Now this is dangerously close to LNC's home territory (the timeless, spaceless, spiritual intelligence, a.k.a God), isn't it? You've just handed the Xian's the home-field advantage by your choice of words. Now you've got to back up and start over, dismantling what they've taken your words to mean and clarifying what you actually did mean.

 

Wouldn't it simply be easier to avoid using any kind loaded wording altogether? First, so that I don't misunderstand you any more and secondly, so that your opponents can't perform a linguistic judo-move on you and focus on what you unintentionally implied?

 

Please note that I mean no personal criticism here. Nor am I trying to force the issue and make you change how you write. I'm simply trying to highlight the errors I've made (projection and misunderstanding) by looking at what I perceive the root cause to be. When it comes to the use of language and my own choice of words, you'll note that in this thread I've been at pains to strip away as many loaded words from my postings as possible. That's why I've tried to downplay the 'specialness' and 'value' and 'significance' of the patterns we see in reality. That's why I've couched my descriptions of the Multiverse in as plain and utilitarian terms as possible. Hence, my use of such phrases as...

"Nothing is favored over anything else."

"Universes arise simply as a statistical expression of the Multiverse's infinite potential."

"We are just a function of a blind, impersonal process."

Do you see how I've given any Xian apologist nothing to work with here? There's nothing personal or special or value-based for them to latch onto. I've deliberately de-personalized my language and consciously pared away loaded terms like creativity, being and value. Those words are meat-and-drink for clever Xians. So, if we don't use them, we keep them on the back foot. They then have to demonstrate where, in an indifferent, mechanistic, natural Multiverse the hand of a personal, moral, creative supernatural being can be clearly seen.

 

I hope I've communicated this clearly. Please ask me to clarify any point, if I haven't done so.

 

There is a special status to all things, and intelligence is and does have its place in the whole. It is special. So is our biology. So is the rock.

 

Sorry AM, but I just can't let this go - pedant, that I'm becoming!

If all things are described as 'special', does that mean there's nothing that's ordinary?

By according special status to all things, haven't you destroyed the meaning of the word? Surely, to use it properly requires a division between that which is considered special and that which is not? If all things are special, then wouldn't they all share the same status, making them... ordinary!!?

Someone like LNC would punish you unmercifully at this point, taking the debate fully into their hands and forcing you to have to wrest control back from them. Why give them that opportunity?

 

I'm also glad you agree that intelligence arises from the potential of the Universe (I'll just use that to describe all of it - the mulitiverse if you will). Everything we are is an expression or manifestation of that potential - including intelligence, and furthermore consciousness itself, which is exposed in manifest forms. It's potential exists within and throughout everything it seems then, since it did not arise out of nothing.

 

Where I'll diverge with you philosophically, which this is, is that I do see that a greater degree of that realized potential of the Universe, is in fact to expose a greater depth of it and to create a greater degree of insight into that Nature. That does have value to that unfolding of our emerging awareness. And if that means nothing to you, than this is simply going to be a matter of personal interests and values. I can and do see profound beauty in the mundane, and I also see a greater expression of it in the more complex forms, such as the human in all its shades and subtleties.

 

A treasure of special deeper value, does not make all others insignificant. Not to me anyway. If you don't see distinctions, then it's how you respond to the world, as opposed to how I do and choose to pursue a further depth of understanding and appreciation of it through that response. Somehow, I doubt though that you view the grain of sand and a child as equals. Not too many humans I know do. To me I view that grain of sand as beauty, and the human as a marvel - and the Universe as the Source of All, and its Realization. Your vision of it appears to lack that, or perhaps better stated, doesn't account for it.

 

Ok then, my final point.

Yes, I do see much beauty in the cosmos and in my family life and in human life in general. But..

 

...as I've tried to explain, I feel the need to keep my personal vision of these things out of debates here, because I'm trying to control my use of language, trying to improve my logic skills and trying to keep my feelings out of things as much as possible. My deep feelings about anything won't help me make my points more clearly, nor will they help me employ logical arguments, nor will they do anything helpful, here at Ex-Chr. As I said in the Infidel Guy forum, I consider emotions as unreliable guides to understanding and comprehension. To that I'd add, that they also make very bad servants or masters in any kind of rational debate.

 

I look forward to deviling into your points later.....

 

Sounds good! I will reply to Part 3 asap. No hard feelings I hope!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Deva]

Even if there is objective time, we are still limited regarding our perception of it by the capacity of our brains, and our type of brains, for that matter.

 

Agree. Not only is time subjective to the brain, seeming to slow down or speed up under different circumstances, it also objectively changes with the relative speed of the observer/ observed and in strong gravitational fields.

 

 

How true. Time flows at different rates. When I compare the last six months to the six months last year - this year relatively its like three months instead of six. Time just strikes me as bizarre and I have wondered about it from an early age.

[Ouroboros]

I noticed that when I work out really hard and then run on the treadmill, the seconds go extremely slow. It feels like 10 seconds is a whole minute. But when listening to music that I like, then suddenly the seconds go faster. Seriously...

[foolish girl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg&feature=player_embedded

This is a REALLY cool documentary about what leading cosmologists and physicists are saying about what may have been the conditions before the Big Bang. SUPER COOL
All kinds of multiverse theories and SUPER MACRO Evolution (Evolution of the cosmos)


I have to post and run....hope you like the film!

[bornagainathiest]

Sorry for the delay Antlerman!

 

(...continued)

 

That is to say, none at all.

Except for us, of course who were special magic creations that didn't evolve. Our consciousness and intelligence appeared ex-nihilo!

 

A joke at the expense of the Theists, I presume? If so, then I'm laughing too.

 

So when I say that we were bound to exist, I do so without recourse to any kind of humano-centricism, anthropomorphism or supernaturalism. We were bound to exist, simply as the statistical expression of an ongoing natural process. Given infinite resources and infinite opportunities, nature was bound to bring us blindly and purposelessly into existence. That is all. No over-arching scheme or plan or meaning.

Sounds to me almost like you equate one belief with the other; that if there is 'intent' inherent in the system, that somehow this means the god Jehovah is true! I simply don't equate things this way.

 

Umm... sorry, but I'm struggling to see where you see any 'intent' in anything I've written so far.

I've tried very hard to stick to such concepts as numerical functions, statistics, probabilities, etc. I've also tried very hard NOT to promote or champion the notion of such things as intelligence, intention, purpose, meaning, design, personalities or anything even vaguely resembling the supernatural in the Multiverse. So where and how you conclude that I equate one (presumably religious) belief with another, is beyond me. Perhaps you could quote where I've done so - and then I'll clarify whatever it is that is bringing you to this conclusion. Because, if I have inferred or implied this (your conclusion, described above), then I certainly didn't mean to. Apologies in advance for being confusing, if that's the case.

 

Perhaps this will help?

Q. Is there any intent on the part of either of the 2's or the + symbol or the = sign to bring about the result, namely 4?

Q. Is there any intent on the part of anyone performing the above equation to bring about any other result than the only one permitted by the logic of the exercise?

Q. Can anyone's intention change the outcome of the equation?

Q. Is there any verifiable evidence that the universe has ever exercised it's intention (if it can be described as possessing any such thing) to change reality so that 2+2=5?

Q. Is there any verifiable evidence that any non-human intelligence (this time, not the universe, but anything else) has ever exercised it's intention to change reality so that 2+2=5?

 

Now AM, my answers to these questions are No, No, No, No and No. Do we agree or diverge? Do you have any evidence that might change my mind? I'm open to the possibility, so please help me out here.

 

The point I hope I'm making here, with these questions, is this.

There is a 100% probability that when 2 is added to 2, the result will be 4. Always. Everywhere. There is no choice involved. This is not really a probability, but a certainty. To introduce the notion of intent and/or intention to this purely mechanistic process is, not only to suggest that there might be other options (there aren't) but to also imply that there is some personality, force or agency that is desirous of another result. Are you suggesting that there is?

 

All I'm doing (I hope!) is extrapolating from this simple (mechanistic and impersonal) numerical process to the infinitely complex (but still mechanistic and impersonal) process of Multiversal 'universe' generation. 2 plus 2, leads to 4, with 100% certainty. An infinite Multiverse generates and realizes all possible options, with 100% certainty. The governing logic of both processes is exactly the same. All that differs is the number of variables.

Does this help dispel any lingering notions that I might be talking about anything except pure maths?

 

 

Game over!

And begins.

 

 

Now to add some thoughts to human reference of time that might be of interest for discussion. Anthropologically speaking human's understanding, views of reality in regard to time has shifted over the course of our evolution. As early man roamed as hunter/gatherer, there was no thought to next year, next season, or even next week. It was next day, eat, stay alive, survive. The sense of self was earth-bound, the cycle of eating and surviving, one with the eco-system. As agricultural societies developed, the view of their reality in relation to time shifted to a cyclical reality. Live till next season, plan, store, end and begin again with the rise of the new cycle. Time was cyclical. Self was identified as part of this cycle of seasons.

 

Then as societies began to accumulate and distribute wealth and power, man's view of himself shifted to his domain, the sense of his own continuation into the years, symbolically linked to his power, his name, his wealth, his domain. Man became king of his own castle, and his "self" continued through his children, his heirs, etc. He now viewed himself in time as a linear line, from the present into the long distant future beyond just the next cycle. A continuation of self symbolically linked to linear time. Then with the rise of religious myths, that sense of "self" projected onto a linear view of time, took the form of eternal cities, a continuation of life on earth. A celestial paradise where they would never die, and all of it rooted in man's sense of self in ideas of time.

 

In my view, there is only now, timeless Reality. This is "eternity" and there is no after or before. Everything in human experience and perception of time has to do with their sense of a separate "self". At the end of self, death of that distinction, is in fact to dissolve time into the present, into simple Reality, or Being.

 

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your view of an eternal, timeless now, if this concept is monolithic and changeless. Multiversalism advocates a process and any process must involve change. Ummm...we seem to have entered the territory of Xeno's Arrow here. So, are you advocating a changeless reality or something else? Please specify, as I'm genuinely curious.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I'm not speaking of eternal within a time context - that of things in motion. I'm speaking stepping out of time itself, into the eternal, ever present now. This is a state of conscious mind, not of physical presence. Now I could argue that within your Mulitiverse reality, there is that very ever present Now, and that it it an understand that, like your Multiverse reality is exposing, is yet to be fully realized. I consider that the future personally, as part of that potential yet unrealized, just as we are now a fuller realization of these potentials of the Universe/Multiverse/Reality than the early levels of simple matter, or being.

 

Ah, now I think I see (lightbulb goes on over head)!

 

Now let me devil you (with good-natured intent) with some thoughts about this...

 

1.

Is there some kind of directionality involved here? That is, why should a 'fuller' realization of the Universe/MultiV/Reality be of any greater value than a less full one? Who is applying a value system here, you or the U/M/R? Would you equate this directionality with what we call Time?

 

2.

My current understanding tells me that in a truly infinite Multiverse, ALL possible conditions are fully realized, an infinite number of times.

Therefore, how can there be any directionality or movement? There are already an infinite number of fully realized universes, an infinite number of those approaching full realization, an infinite number of those that will never achieve full realization and an infinite number that (if it's possible) moving from full realization back to simpler levels of existence, perhaps becoming non-existent. This scenario has never changed. It has always been this way, it is this way now and always will be this way. (No! Don't ask me how there can be more than one infinity of anything - I don't know!) That's why I mentioned my recurring headache, earlier in this thread. You describe it (going out on a limb about your understanding now) as an eternal, ever-present 'now'. I think I agree. But that agreement doesn't stop me asking myself how a changeless eternity can give rise to change - which it must do, for us to exist at all! This is driving me nuts!

How can there be timeless time? Aaaaaaaaaaaghh!!!@!

 

.

.

.

 

(Recovers sanity...)

3.

I think it may be a wise precaution to remember that such concepts as...

 

* Beginnings and endings

* Movements from one state or condition to another

* The exchange between potential and realization

* Any kind of changes generally

 

...may well be features that apply only to our vanishingly small part of the Multiversal whole. Therefore, to take these parochial notions and try to apply them to a supposed larger whole, may be a fool's errand. Ok, so while there ARE an infinite number of universes that we can comprehend in this way, there are also an infinite number that we cannot, an infinite number that we will never comprehend and an infinite number that we will comprehend only after we have changed in ways as yet unimagined by us.

(Where's the tylenol?)

 

Bye,

 

BAA.

 

 

I like your thoughts, I see more yet to come....

 

 

P.S. It's much easier reading your responses not in blue color....

[Antlerman]

I'll get to a reply as "time" permits, but thought this might provoke some thought in the meantime....

 

 

 

[Kaiser01]

time is in a way irevelant to reality as it is a man made mesurment.

 

think of the big bang the very first second cant exist becasue it would have a infinante begining

 

big band= 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000......ect

 

because evry mesurment of time has a smaller component that makes it up so 1 second has mili seconds and evry milisecond has nanosecond's and nanoseconds have picoseconds and so forth.

 

there is no starting point in time mesurment relating to reality becasue it constantly breaks down into smaller units all the way up to the yactosecond and even then it is broken down into mesurments faster than it.

 

of course this is my explanation and ihavent looked into it much but yea time would be virtualy irevelant to the reality of the universe same thing aplies to the end of the universe.

[skepticalme]

Kaiser,

There is a limit to how much time can be broken down. The smallest unit of time that can exist is called plank time. It is equal to 5.4x10^-44 seconds. Time, distance or any other measurable quality of the universe is not irrelevant. The only thing arbitrary about them is the units we choose to measure them in.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

If you can travel back in time, through a wormhole (doesn't matter how you make it out the other end, even if its just as subatomic particles or energy or whatever), into the past, then that means the past is still ongoing. So you, as a child, are still a child behind you in time-miles so to speak. Kind of like how when driving from New York to San Fransisco on a 2D earth, despite being in Chicago, New York still exists in the same way you left it, you're just not aware of it.

 

I'd say that, as a result, it might be possible that the future too is ongoing. Kind of like while you move forward on the 2D surface, ahead of you, San Fransisco still exists. Or am I mistaken for using a linear model for time, and am I just missing something completely?

 

In my own view, before the big bang in our universe, the beginning of our time, is sometime in some other universe we're no longer a part of. We branched off them long ago.

 

An interesting video, I'd like to see when his idea gets analyzed and we can see how his ideas fit into the puzzle:

 

[Kaiser01]

Kaiser,

There is a limit to how much time can be broken down. The smallest unit of time that can exist is called plank time. It is equal to 5.4x10^-44 seconds. Time, distance or any other measurable quality of the universe is not irrelevant. The only thing arbitrary about them is the units we choose to measure them in.

 

 

i see, i didnt know that there was a smallest unit even considerd thanks