[quote=“glipsnort, post:23, topic:51503”] Why single out evolution? In this version of B theory, there is no causality in any aspect of physical reality.
[/quote]
While this is true you can still have logical causality based on the relationship between objects and propositions. But yes, I was simply singling out natural selection as an example; a whole new metaphysic would be needed under this version of B theory (which I think is not necessarily the view people have under relativity).
I think I understand what you’re saying now (I typed an entire reply and realized you disagreed with what I thought I was replying to haha). It sounds like what you’re saying is that there is still events that happen “before” others in that they affect what we consider current and future events, but the experience with passing through the events can happen in any order. In other words, people who claim there is no distinction between past/present/future are wrong.
Paul, I’ve just finished reading through the thread, and I listened to the Stanford Plato entry on A and B theories of time in the “Time” article (Time (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)). It’s interesting, but there’s a lot I don’t understand. I’ll look back over things soon, and particularly Mitchell’s explanations.
I have a few questions at this point that really have nothing to do with one theory of time or another.
Why is one or the other of importance to WLC?
Does he need one or the other to be true in order to build a particular apologetic argument?
What if his argument is built on a faulty concept of time, or he has misunderstood/misconstrued/otherwise-missed on the concept of time he “needs” for his argument?
Would this argument be understandable to a) the average layperson, or b) even a graduate-level person, who is working in a field of math study most people can’t even describe? c) only Physicists? d)Anybody else?
If the argument is not understandable to anyone but physicists (and maybe also non-physicists who read heavily in the area and understand what they read), and given that WLC is not a physicist himself, what use is it?
What does it have to do with the price of tea in China?
Mitchell, is there any website or book or other resource you can suggest for the rankest pre-beginner with space-time (space-time structure?)? There’s no point in me attempting to ask for clarification on anything you’ve spent the time to describe and explain here, when I can’t even put together a decent question nor would understand the answer.
Thanks
Of course there are books and resources… but easier to understand??? gosh… I was trying to make it easier to understand, with no mathematical equations. You can try the wikipedia article on “relativity of simultaneity.” But my suggestion is, even if you cannot formulate a question, you can point out which part you are finding difficult and let me try again.
But I think the place to start is why the idea of the universe as a sequence of instances doesn’t work. The problem is that this imposes a notion of universal simultaneity which has no basis in the facts. There is ambiguity involved in doing that because of how it depends on the inertial frame you do it in. Any event on the sun within a 16.6 minute window can be equally considered simultaneous with the present moment here on earth. In the case of Alpha Centauri the window is 8.734 years wide.
But if you restrict things to just the earth the ambiguity drops down to only .04 seconds and so looking at things as a movie film (sequence of instances) works pretty good in that case.
And God bless you for this, Mitchell. What math I had has atrophied with disuse, and it wasn’t enough for this anyway.
Reading your reply, I realize what I am asking about is probably more foundational than I realized. A native English speaker doesn’t start reading even the delightful children’s chapter book, Emil und die Detective until after a few years of German language study. There’s basic stuff to know, before taking on the challenge of the simplest work.
I could try the article on “relativity of simultaneity," maybe as a backward pointer to the previous step of study, and keep working backward to figure out where to begin to go forward.
I think Mitchell, Vinnie and Christy as you quoted above, all said it well.
I DO think human experience is essential to our understanding of the world. Because of that (my human experience, that is) I am baffled at WLC’s perceived need to pull in concepts of time from physics and philosophy in order to support faith in Jesus, or back up the Kerygma. Is the listener simply to be dazzled or baffled (ya’ll know the saying about brilliance and b.s.)?
The questions that lead people to an interest in Jesus or more broadly in God rarely involve formal concepts of time, but the nitty-gritties of life. A parent with a sick child wants hope, not philosophy. People want meaning, perspective on suffering (as well as relief from it), love. And people want to know if they can trust their personal experience/sense that there is something beyond their “self.”
People outside the faith, looking in, want to know what the &&&& is wrong with the people on the inside, why we’re such a crowd of twisted, self-righteous, hypocritical prigs.
The Gospel is hard enough to get to today with the challenges to the texts we rely on, and the state of the church as we know it. We have more immediate issues to hand that have nothing to do with philosophy of time, concepts of infinity, types of uni-/multiverses.
We could begin to demonstrate an apologetic of life in Christ. Which brings me back to Penner and my summer reading review.
One thing I realized quite recently is that there isn’t a “one-size-fits-all” approach to bringing people to Jesus. Some people respond to the gospel directly, others respond to emotional arguments, and others still to more logical arguments (and I’d argue that’s okay). WLC himself says that the primary way people come to know Jesus is through the Holy Spirit (not through rational argumentation), but logical or philosophical arguments are sometimes needed to justify certain aspects of Christianity.
This was very important to me, because I wanted to know that Christianity was true, and not just wishful thinking, a delusion, etc (as some skeptics claim). I’ve heard plenty of scientists claim that science and cosmology remove the need for God. In my view, WLC is (rightly) pushing back on these claims and also showing that Christianity is an option for “thinking” people.
With that being said, I do see you point; is this really helpful for a majority of people? Is this really showing the virtues of Christianity? To be honest, I don’t know. But WLC’s popular work like On Guard (not his academic work that goes into all these issues about time) were instrumental for me believing Christianity and specifically the resurrection.
To connect this up with that diagram above, what I am talking about is the difference from the usual Euclidean version of space time where the present is only this thin plane between past and future (labeled in the diagram above as the “hyperspace of the present.” But in that conical diagram, most of space time is neither past nor future but the space in between. Other planes through the center, at a different angles would be the so called “hyperspace of the present” that you would get in other inertial frames (while the future and past cones would be exactly the same). The fact that these future and past cones are the same in all inertial frames (with all the same space-time events inside) is why we can say that relativity makes a clear distinction between past and future.
It’s not like there is such a thing as alternative facts though. Factual evidence is not subjective, even if someone is the only observer or the evidence is very personal. Phil Yancey comes to mind.
We often speak of God as being outside of time. As in the past and future is the present for God and because of this he knows all things or something.
Jeremiah 19:4-6
New American Standard Bible
4 Since they have abandoned Me and have made this place foreign, and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and since they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent 5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I did not command nor speak of, nor did it ever enter My [b]mind; 6 therefore, behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when this place will no longer be called Topheth or the Valley of Ben-hinnom, but rather the Valley of Slaughter.
But if he knows all things, why does he seem to have been surprised by the fact they offered their sins as a sacrifice through fire. Like it says “ it never crossed their mind” and so…. Sounds like he was not expecting that and is in time as well. Just like verses on patience. It takes being confined to time to have patience.
All human observations are subjective. I already know we don’t agree on this and have no desire to argue with you again, because your arguments don’t make sense to me and are repetitive and unconvincing.
Yes, I thought about this more than I should have in an undergrad epistemology class. The thing is when our observations are in agreement, then it’s possible there actually is an object there, and that certain properties with that object are real.
The metaphysical discussion begins with our agreement about an objective world. I also think this supposes a theory of time that has the beginning of the world in the past. But this is still a work in progress.
Following this back through the discussion with @Dale and @Paulm12 made me wonder if the word salad was a side dish or the main course. Thus I am brought to the start of it, where an objection could be made to clear up some of the muddle…
Although I agree with the second sentence, I think the first goes too far, and we lose science in this direction. Perhaps the first part just needs more careful wording, which is only lacking because it wasn’t the focus of the discussion.
Our contact with reality is subjective. But to equate reality itself with this is to limit ourselves to the mentality of infants and monkeys. The fact that we have no perception apart from our beliefs is balanced by the fact that we can alter our beliefs to fit objective discoveries. Objective discoveries exist because we can write down procedures which give the same results no matter who follows them and no matter what they believe. Thus even though our perceptions engage our beliefs, this doesn’t mean our perception is limited to our beliefs in a static way.
And the fact is that can discover that our naïve experiences are not the limit of reality itself – so much so that objective discoveries can clash starkly with our expectations and worldview. In this way we can know that there is an objective aspect to reality. I believe this can also be taken too far… for there is no evidence that reality is exclusively objective. Thus I advocate a middle road between these extremes… for a reality which is both objective and subjective.
Perhaps this is a use of the phrase “absolute truth” which has no meaning for me. The only meaning I can attach to the relative/absolute distinction is to compare the truths we adopt as a matter of mere convention with those we accept for good reasons. Accordingly I see room for both relative truths and absolute truths. Sometimes conventions are unavoidable when it is more important to have a determination than what the determination is precisely.
I think it mostly means we need to re-examine our terms when this happens to find more meaningful uses for the words with definitions which are more productive. Deconstruction will not lead to nothing for me because I can always fall back on a pragmatic foundation for truth… according to the effect of believing in things.
Why does it have to be A vs B and not A and B?
The physical universe and our existence in it is temporal, but in even this temporal universe there are the hints of another universe of consciousness as Theories of Relativity and Quantum Physics show us time is relative and reality is influenced by conscious observance. This points to the co-existence of theory B.
Theory A would say that things occurred or will occur in a “Once Upon a Time” context.
Theory B says rather things always existed and will exist forever - “Always Upon Forever” context.
Interesting in how the bible’s explanation of man’s relationship with God fits this concept quite nicely. And indeed seems to support the reason why God is in three persons - the Father is in all times and the Son enters into the temporal world to guide us, while the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son to do what God wants done. Yes Quantum Physics suggest multiple and indeed infinite time cones and possibilities, but in my opinion only one is observed by a consciousness that transcends time. Is this oversimplification of a complex question? Perhaps but it makes sense to me anyway.
That’s not the usage of obective vs subjective though. I don’t disagree, but what you say doesn’t make our observations objective in the sense of the English word. We can have consensus about reality and describe reality while acknowledging our access to truth about reality is inherently subjective.
Not when it’s our access. Your access or my access is inherently subjective. But when it’s accurately or definitionally described as our access, it is no longer inherently subjective.
I don’t think we disagree. I just think even our most objective, scientific descriptions of reality are inherently framed by our human abilities to interact with that reality, and as such are subjective and incomplete. The fact that we see and hear and touch as opposed to some other sensory capabilities we can’t comprehend because we don’t have them determines what we believe reality consists of.