Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is enjoying a late surge in the polls for the Republican nomination, especially in the crucial early caucus state of Iowa. Part of his appeal is a sense of humor, as evidenced by this clever appropriation of the Chuck Norris Facts meme:
Chuck Norris, in addition to his considerable thespian credentials, is a proud creationist who wants the Bible taught in public schools. So it is not surprising to find Mike Huckabee denying the reality of evolution during a televised debate.
But this video, while also quite funny, is pretty scary. Via Cynical-C, it’s a 2004 speech to the Republican Governors’ Association.
A phone call from God! Quite the thigh-slapper. Huckabee artfully includes an assurance that God doesn’t take side during elections — although we all know his preferences, apparently.
I understand that it’s a joke. But there are moments of solemnity during the “phone call,” when Huckabee is being perfectly serious. One of those is at the 2:00 mark, where we are reminded that the President talks to God. And then we receive a list of instructions, including “protecting marriage.” (It needs to be protected from The Gays, for those who don’t have your decoder rings.) George W. Bush himself has occasionally mentioned talking to God, although usually in private meetings where it’s difficult to get objective verification, and admittedly his theology is somewhat unsystematic.
A lot of people who don’t really believe in the old-fashioned supernatural nevertheless think it’s a good idea to appropriate spiritual terminology for their own uses — re-defining “faith” as “any hypothesis that has not yet been proven,” or “God” as “the warm feeling I get when contemplating the universe,” or “religion” as “a nice kind of social club that brings people together to reinforce each other’s goodness.” It’s not a good idea. These are words, and they have meanings when you say them — people think they know what you have in mind. When you say “God,” most people think of the dictionary definition — “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.” They’re not thinking of “the laws of nature.” And they honestly believe in this dictionary-definition God. And they let that belief affect, or at least justify, how they govern the country. Shouldn’t every non-religious person be deeply alarmed about this state of affairs?
At the Beyond Belief II conference, Stuart Kauffman gave an interesting (although flawed, I thought) talk about complexity and reductionism, and then ruined the whole thing by suggesting at the end that we should re-define “the sacred” as something arising from the radical contingency of the empirical path of biological evolution. Or something like that, it was a bit vague. What an abysmally bad idea. If you want to choose a word that refers to something other than the traditional religious conception of supreme beings and all that, then don’t use religious language. Because there are other people out there — far vaster in number than you — that are using those same words to mean exactly what they straightforwardly denote: a supernatural power with a vested interest in smiting the wicked, especially boys and girls who fall in love with boys and girls, respectively. And they’re running this country at the moment, and their beliefs are enacted into policy.
Of course, arguing with Mike Huckabee and his friends runs the risk that Chuck Norris will come along and kick your ass. That’s just the chance we have to take.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Yeah, Huckabee is cute, but I wouldn’t want him President either. I do want to support honest science, and am well aware of what happened in for example The Republican War Against Science. But there’s “religion”, there’s “science”, and watching over it all is “philosophy” about which I have things to say.
Sean, there is not one simple “dictionary definition” of “God.” If you consider the history of philosophical theology, you appreciate the wide range of views of the ultimate being/ground of being/foundational given reality etc or whatever else to call it, all with their own connotations and implied characterizations. Why should the rabble or one social institution own a concept? There are some crude ideas about ultimate reality and some very advanced ideas about that, from banal grumpy mega people like Zeuss, to more upscale Jehovah, to Hegel’s Absolute, to “The Plenum” (which is sort of an “opposite of nothingness”, to a field which creates but is more general than the “vacuum” which embodies only our specific particles, all with varying degrees of semblance to persons. There are ideas of something with a mind going through specific thoughts at specific times, but ideas of “Mind” which just holds all thought in Platonic majesty, etc. Sure, hard to concieve, but so is the Omega of infinite set theory which holds everything and every set there is in math (i.e., there is nothing which does not belong or is not subsumed) and yet It cannot be analyzed or describe any more than this AFAIK. Also, the various traits ascribed to “God” are mostly separately selectable, like “create” (or serves as necessary ground or pattern for existing), omniscient, omnipotent, etc.
The most subtle but cogent argument is, that there’s no reason for one possible world to “exist” and not others, since “exist” is either not a real distinction (modal realism) or it is the ultimate abstract non-predicate, and therefore cannot perferentially attach logically to a given type of world (like ours – sorry, but your innocent, child-like lament “mabye this is just the way things are” is just not on the ball in the world of deep ontological thought.) I have provided an argument in other threads, that for us to find ourselves in an orderly world (since disorderly but life containing ones would far outnumber ones like ours) supports the idea (there is never “proof” one way or the other in this business, OK!)that some “Orderer” is at work. Well, that may or may not lead to “God,” but either you don’t even ask such questions, or you realize that it’s a game question with no simple put down of the “yes” option.
Furthermore, I am quite bothered by what I see as hypocrisy regarding “woo-woo” issues. Here’s what I said to Iblis about the wooly “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics:
Iblis, you shouldn’t say “The wavefunction of the multiverse is actually static” as if anyone actually knew that – it’s just how those who believe in this conceit think that it should be described. And, it still doesn’t really derive or explain there being any “hits” at all – whether the wave is “static” (in the silly sense of misinterpreting the ultimate significance of the Minkowski diagram, just because time was simply *graphed* with space all in one piece, as if that actually made time go away?) or “dynamic.”
Glib talk of our most fundamental experiences (in the classic shared scientific sense too, not the highly individual/subjective sense) as being “illusions” is presumptous and so antithetical to the orginal spirit of empiricism – I see no reason to surrender the empirical given to a bunch of affectedly too-clever-by-half, post-modern pseudoscientists. If you or I decide to do an experiment, you or I will get such and such result. Denying that is crank science of another sort. Why don’t all the neo-atheists who gripe about “woo-woo-ism” whenever it might support “purpose” in the universe, jump on this flaky indulgence? For the same reason political partisans ignore anything wrong their own party does, etc.
Last: Folks, please don’t frame this business as ultimately being the conflict between “science and religion.” Sure, that’s out there if “religion” is defined as a *tradition* of thoughts and practices about God issues, as it properly should be. But free-wheeling independent arguments about necessary and contingent existence, anthropic coincidences, modal realism, etc, are *not* “religion.” (BTW I am a Unitarian Universalist!) Talking about these questions, *pro or con*, is “philosophy” and that’s what posters here have been doing about these questions, whether they realize or admist it or not. Even talking about what science is or does or makes sense in it is “philosophy” and not the direct practice of science itself.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
In one of those not uncommon coincidences, before reading this I was forwarded a link to:
10 Reasons Why Johnny Cash Owns Chuck Norris
http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/full/27579/10_Reason_Why_Johnny_Cash_Owns_Chuck_Norris
Reason 7.
Chuck is a republican. Johnny was close with every president except for GWB. It was said he just didn’t trust that son of a bitch. When Johnny didn’t trust someone, you just knew something foul was going on.
Reason 8.
Johnny was invited to play the at White House in 1972 for Richard Nixon. He was given a list of politically correct songs to sing. He instead metaphorically threw up his middle finger at the establishment, in true ShoutWire fashion, and sang a set full of left leaning, politically charged tunes. Chuck Norris has never told the president to fuck off in his own house.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
It should be noted that Chuck is deeply invested in education in Texas, owning a large share of a company that stands to make a great deal of money from providing curricula materials for the “new science standards” that are to be unveiled next year. He has contributed large funds to the campaigns of politicians to influence the Texas education board. His handiwork is in evidence today with this latest story out of that big state.
Well we certainly would want our state school boards to remain “neutral” when it comes to whether ID/creationism is science i suppose, because, heaven forbid some court might rule that it clearly is not. Oh wait, a Federal judge did issue a ruling that said the teaching of ID is religious and therefore not constitutional. Maybe Texas has a different understanding of the US Constitution, one more closely aligned with the Chuck Norris school of faith and ass-kicking.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Neil B, you say about the word God, “Why should the rabble or one social institution own a concept?” But you can say the same about the swastika (or the star of david, for that matter). Common meaning is common meaning and needs to be respected if we want to be properly understood.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
off-topic: dear cosmicvariance bloggers, any thoughts on Mattsson’s paper saying dark energy is a mirage due to selective optical observations http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4264 Looks very sensible to me but I’m a non-specialist…
November 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
It’s hard to get alarmed about a state of affairs that’s been the status quo for, oh, the last ten thousand years or so.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
The list of things that have been status-quo for the last ten thousand years and yet I find extremely alarming is too long to fit on this blog.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I am deeply, religiously agnostic. I was raised in a liberal christian tradition. I am not appropriating the language; it was given to me. In many cases, the language is more properly described as having been hijacked by fundamentalism, which is, we should remember, a modern ideology.
Religious liberalism is too, of course, I’m not trying to claim otherwise. But I think it’s disingenuous to insist that only the conservatives have a valid claim on the religious tradition, or that I should give it up because they have a greater public mindshare.
My biggest problem is their use of ‘faith’, which you’ve accepted here as the only valid one. Look at the secular uses of faith: I have faith that my friends will not abandon me at difficult times, for instance. Is this a statement of proud irrationality, that I will reject all other evidence, etc.? Of course not. It’s not even properly a statement of belief, which is something that I think needs to be carefully divorced from the notion of faith. What it, rather, is a statement of hopefulness, of optimism, and of trust. It is also reciprocal; one must also act in good faith.
I am not a believer, but I am of the faithful.
I also, however, believe in using the appropriate terminology. I will cheerfully describe myself as an atheist when the situation, and clarity merits it. It is also a statement of fact, and in no way impinges on my exploration and use of religious language. I have no need at all to get into fine points of my particular liberal theology with the vast majority of people. It’s pointless, and not worth doing in the slightest.
However, in private, and with like-minded people, I’m going to speak appropriately to that situation. Sometimes that means talking about god. Sometimes, for me, that means talking about Eris. Sometimes it means professing agnosticism, or atheism, and sometimes, like now, it means a more careful explanation. They’re all true, and my usage is careful to reflect how my audience is going to understand it and how I want it to be understood at the time. It’s not going to work perfectly, of course, but that’s alright by me.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
From today’s “What’s New” by Bob Park, making much the same point as Sean does
“1. FAITH: THE WAR BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
It’s time we had a little talk. The New York Times on Saturday published
an op-ed by Paul Davies that addresses the question: “Is embracing the
laws of nature so different from religious belief?” Davies concludes
that, “until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the
universe its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.” Davies has
confused two meanings of the word “faith.” The Oxford Concise English
Dictionary on my desk gives the two distinct meanings for faith as: “1)
complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on
spiritual conviction rather than proof.” A scientist’s “faith” is built
on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word “faith,” therefore,
are not only different, they are exact opposites. Davies, who won the
1995 Templeton Prize is not the only physicist to make that
mistake. “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves
faith” Charles Townes said in his 2005 Templeton statement. On laser
physics I would happily defer to Townes, but this is a matter of the
English language. Here we defer to the dictionaries.”
November 30th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
If you want to choose a word that refers to something other than the traditional religious conception of supreme beings and all that, then don’t use religious language. Because there are other people out there — far vaster in number than you — that are using those same words to mean exactly what they straightforwardly denote: a supernatural power with a vested interest in smiting the wicked, especially boys and girls who fall in love with boys and girls, respectively.
Sean, while I wouldn’t necessarily endorse it, I think an argument can be made that it’s precisely because the other side invokes Mr. G. so much that “our” side has to do it too. I.e., given that religious terminology is not going anywhere, at least put forward an alternative vision for what that terminology can be taken to denote. Adopting your opponent’s language while subverting its meaning is a classic debate tactic…
November 30th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Scott, I know where you’re coming from, and I wish I had time to be less superficial about this point, but I think in this case it’s a terrible tactic. It’s not subversive appropriation, it’s surrendering (I would argue) to a wrong way of conceptualizing the world. And it’s powerfully enabling to a bunch of fuzzy-minded nonsense, from blue laws to horoscopes in daily newspapers. (Here I am being careful enough to refer not simply to the effects of religion, but to the corroding effects of the acceptance of religious language — if the world is a spiritual place, all sorts of crazy things follow.)
November 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
bob (and Sean, and Scott), there is a world of difference between stock symbols closely associated with a given institution (and “common usage” too) versus a wide-ranging concept like “God. ” If we are talking about something in philosophical discourse, we can certainly frame it in a way suitable for that purpose regardless of what average people think, *as long as we say that when we start* – that’s what matters to being understood in any discussion. Otherwise, we couldn’t talk about special meanings of “spin” in physics etc. that weren’t the same sort of thing that common people meant! Indeed, most scientific/philosophical discussion is very much about such specially defined or contexed terms and ideas.
BTW, the thread in which I quoted myself, comment #38 , was in http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/11/27/things-happen-not-always-for-a-reason/.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Before Darwin, how else does the human race come to exist? It would have been easy to believe in deities.
Now we know the natural cause maybe almost all the way back. No deities.
I’m hoping we turn out to be programs. That we are parallel computations of a single I. Who, of course, in the end, turns out to be me.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Jennifer, I’m not sure Davies did the best job of having his say, but: at least one sort of “faith” he was referring to is the faith that scientific method and forms of thought can give us all the answers we want about the universe (or even the universes!) That strikes me as being like the simplistic faith of ultraconservatives in “the free market” to solve all problems (you know, we don’t even need public schools etc.) That is indeed faith, because it’s a good record so far but trends don’t always continue. Actually, I don’t even think it has succeeded that well so far if we are going to be honest about it. We have the collapse problem and the origins of true acausal randomness (genuine mathematical processes are deterministic and can’t even produce true randomness as I explained, and see my digs at many worlds and decoherence in recent threads), the infinities (and many of the best admit that renormalization is rather phony in respects, which I take their word since being more philosophy-trained, I don’t get the details), problems integrating gravity with QM etc.
PS, to give proper credit to Sean about this ill-phrased “science versus religion” tiff, since I keep griping about “simplistic” framings etc (but how unfortunate that the “better” quality lines of debate are indeed so under the radar in most intellectual life):
Comment #23 in http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/07/11/consolations-of-materialist-philosophy/#comments
Sean: I think that complaints of a false dichotomy, or that I should have included a different-colored pill for every possible nuanced philosophical stance one could imagine taking, are missing the point a bit here. I wasn’t talking about which such stance is right or wrong, or what would be the best of all possible worlds in which to live. I was just imagining a choice between my own world view (which is shared by many atheists) and that of a typical, traditional religious believer, and suggesting that I am “fortunate enough” that the one I believe in is also the one I would prefer to have be true. Nothing that I said implies that those are the only possible views.
Well put, even though I don’t agree with that particular world view (or that of traditional religious believers either.)
November 30th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
PS: If anyone is going to complain about using “God” in other than the ostensible “traditional” or “common” sense (even though every Medieval university student heard very high-quality abstract musings about prime movers, necessary and contingent existence, could even God make the angles of a triangle add to other than 180 degrees; heh, etc.): Just consider the original, common, logical meaning of “universe”! Hel-oo-oo: umm, “uni” you know … means “one”, get it? Like, it was “by definition” the whole shebang, “all that existed” (whatever that means) or at least the one material world that God made or etc. Now we see all these meta-physicists blithely throwing about talk of “multiple universes”, “are there other universes?” etc. (Well at least “the multiverse” is an appropriate new name, but not always used.)
Sure, I know (I guess) what that means: a contiguous space-time (or at least, space) continuum and why must there only be one (but what are they all “sitting in”?) Yet consider the object lesson of how well meta-physicists were allowed to get away with that, not just semantically but also breezing with little fraternal complaint right past old empirical and positivist standards (now that maybe there was an unlicensed something that could be useful to atheism instead of to mysticism, etc.)
November 30th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Sean,
I realize you must be a very smart person, but your political instincts seem rudimentary. If there is one thing the conservative mindset needs, it is a clear opponent. Just as Bush needs bin Ladin and vice versa, conservative religion (the version that insists on the paternal deity) needs equally strong minded atheism. Their worst enemies are not those who directly oppose them, but the ones who do breach the walls of religious terminology with meanings that confuse the tribal function of us vs. them.
Maybe, if you were to look within, there might also be some sense of tribal identification motivating your rejection of all religious content and context.
I think that from a purely logical perspective, the most rational refutation of monotheism is to point out that the absolute is conceptual basis, rather than apex, so if there is a spiritual absolute, it would be the essence out of which we rise, not an ideal form from which we fell. I admit I don’t get a lot of response when I bring that point up, so maybe it isn’t as obvious as it seems to me.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
[...] a scientist weighs in. In this post, the blogger discusses this video (along with the Chuck Norris [...]
December 1st, 2007 at 12:42 am
It would be a wonderful thing to be at a point in one’s life where they could say as Sean did in Things Happen, Not Always for a Reason, “Of course, sometimes things do happen for a reason. And sometimes they don’t. That’s life here at the edge of chaos, and I for one enjoy the ride.” However, in this universe a relatively few number of people achieve this stoic perspective. For many non-scientific folks, the fuzzy-minded nonsense of their religious beliefs provides them with a level of subjective security that is unobtainable through cosmology or particle physics. I imagine that neither cosmology nor particle physics, nor science in general will ever provide this comfort and therefore the fuzzy-minded nonsense is here to stay as it has been for ten thousand years. The founders of our nation understood this fact and appreciated the human need for a balanced approach between spiritual and rational thought. As long as people continue to populate this universe, even if it is one of many and the worst of any, and as long as the concept of death completely negates the concept of life, the concept of a transcending god who is both creator and lawgiver will endure. As a nation, we would be smart to recognize our human condition and seek to balance it with both faith and reason.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:47 am
John Merryman said;
Possibly because it sounds like gibberish.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:05 am
We like to dither on the possibility of ‘free will’ and ‘freedom to choose’
but ultimately who gets to choose whether they get cancer or not?
who gets to choose from a myriad of ‘inherited’ or ‘acquired’ diseases.
And who gets to choose death. Doesn’t Our mortality deny any real ‘free will’
A military state or empire will always conjure up some higher if not divine authority. And the US whether you like it or not is a military state run by the Pentagon, with the US President as the C in C. Just think how much news coverage there has been about Son of Bush’s foreign policy and war in Iraq – (threats to Iran & North Korea …) compared to the home front whether floods in New Orleans, or raging fires in California.
I’m sure the 100,000 plus troops in Iraq could have been better used at home to defend from the ravages of ‘nature’. But I guess MACHO men and teenagers who play shoot me ups, then want to go to Iraq and shoot rag heads for real. Of course unlike x-box and computer games where you play without getting hurt (and you can even have unlimited lives or inmortality or omnipotence) in the real world, the other side sometimes gets to kill some of your mates, and invites you to share in their ‘pain’.
I would say that what drives US foreign policy is not so much a god talking from a burning bush to the president, but the military tactic: hit them before they get too powerful (Gulf War I) and kick them again while they are down (Gulf War II).
Not so much survival of the fittest, as survival of the technologically advanced. But then technological advances also threaten Armageddon and extinction, and some medical advances keep the likes of Dick Cheney ticking – like a bomb.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:49 am
Philip,
Personally, I don’t like to flaunt my own ignorance, so when someone says something I don’t understand, I ask questions before making declarations as to its validity, but I realize that not everyone is equally curious.
Here is an idea; Why don’t you google Plato’s concept of ‘Ideal Forms’ and see if you do or don’t think the particular paradigm of God espoused by monotheistic religions isn’t essentially an ideal form of personhood, specifically adult male personhood. Of which we are therefore imperfect copies of and so seek to return to that model of perfection.
Another thought to consider; Do you think Pat Robertson, who just endorsed Guliani, is more concerned with ‘godless liberal academics,’ whom he has made untold millions railing against, or by liberal theologians cutting into the younger generations of his flock/tribe?
Nature has seen fit to create people who define their sense of identity in religious terms, so if scientists are as objective as they claim, they should be more accommodating of the religious issue then religions will be of scientific enquiry. Just as democracies need to be more accommodating of diversity then dictatorships are.
Politics is being able to see the entire board, not just the next move.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:05 am
In our present era, it is possible for people to win fortune and fame in practicing cosmology just as it was in our past for people to win fortune and fame by practicing astrology. Both invoke an ingenious blend of determinism and randomness in developing their worldviews. While cosmologists insist, their efforts uncover truth instead of falsehood, what difference does either of these disciplines make to the human condition? Unless faith can give fullness to our reasoning, both disciplines have less value to human beings than any one of the world’s faith-based religions.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:14 am
Sean for President!
There is a sudden burst of hope and optimism in me from this spontaneous thought, that there actually are people in the U.S.A. whom I would be proud to have as President (despite many election cycles of contrary evidence in my lifetime). Perhaps some day a majority of us will realize how much better we could do, and rise up and draft such a person. Or not. (The feeling is draining away as I write.)
December 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Thomas,
What is “the human condition” and why does it need to be changed ?
December 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
[...] ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? Cosmic Variance [...]
December 1st, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Mathieu, the “human condition” is despair. And changing it is the rational and caring thing to do.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:49 pm
John Merryman in #16 (are you descended from any of Robin Hood’s crew?
Heh, I can never forget Worf: “Sir, I object! I am not a Merry Man!”
If there is one thing the conservative mindset needs, it is a clear opponent. Just as Bush needs bin Ladin and vice versa, conservative religion (the version that insists on the paternal deity) needs equally strong minded atheism. Their worst enemies are not those who directly oppose them, but the ones who do breach the walls of religious terminology with meanings that confuse the tribal function of us vs. them.
Yes, very cogent. That means that philosophical theologians like me, mystics, and other religious third-party types are the worst enemies of the religious conservatives, not Sean and other atheist types. Well, am I going to get any credit for that? ;-|
I think that from a purely logical perspective, the most rational refutation of monotheism is to point out that the absolute is conceptual basis, rather than apex, so if there is a spiritual absolute, it would be the essence out of which we rise, not an ideal form from which we fell. I admit I don’t get a lot of response when I bring that point up, so maybe it isn’t as obvious as it seems to me.
It isn’t obvious because it isn’t true. Think of a snake eating its own tail. The Absolute is both a basis and the holder of All, so it is an apex as well as a foundation. There is no specific final state but a receding boundary condition, it’s like Omega in infinite set theory – any attempt to describe it fails, but yet we can refer to it the way I am now. (You’ve just got to read Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Rucker.) You don’t really have to think of anything we “fell” from, although some imagine we have to be reduced to a lower state here to learn something, as in Theosophy. I don’t know what’s true, but neither does anyone else (pro or con: really, that isn’t what distinguishes what you can get away with.)
December 1st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Thomas said that
and that
That kind of obsession with death, concept of the divine, and insistence on faith represent but a few strands in the world tapestry of religion.
Thomas, you speak only for yourself, not humanity.
John Merryman, John Phillips perhaps was a bit rude with his comment, but he really has a point. When you write something like that, you might want to try putting yourself in the shoes of readers who aren’t acquaintances.
As far as Platonic idealism goes, the genocidal deity of the Old Testament and the eternal-gulag creator of the New seem about as far as you can get from desirable adult-male personhood, ideal or otherwise.
“Sean for President!” Now there’s an idea to conjure with!
December 1st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Of course, I speak for myself and not humanity; nonetheless, Bob is correct with his description of the human condition. Knowing we have only a finite numbers of tomorrows and encumbered by our inability to reanimate our yesterdays, despair at life’s fleeting nature should be no surprise.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pm
People react in all kinds of ways to the fact of being alive, and in different ways at different times.
Despair is only one color on the palette. Gratitude, acceptance, joy, curiosity, delight, and wonder are a few others. What stance we take is often dependent on our circumstances: David Sloan Wilson has some nice comments relevant to that toward the end of this.
Cheers!
December 1st, 2007 at 10:31 pm
As soon as the Democratic Atheists party gets on the ballot on all 50 states, I’d be happy to run.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:44 am
Thomas, Michael, et al: I do take a fancy to fancy upscale Platonic idealism, and you’re right that traditional religions fall well short of that. (Well, why not then become a neo-Platonist? Now that I think of it, that’s probably the best title for me, which as a Unitarian Universalist I can add on to my fraternal affiliation.) But note about Christianity: It was ruined by the substitutionary atonement glimmerings and developments in John (written much later) and Paul (ditto, who never met Jesus, and whose wrongly centralized scheme is a misguided diversion I call “Paulianity.”) Jesus had many cool liberal type things to say (I mean too, the ones that are likely real sayings) like “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone” and how the division of sheep and goats for heaven and hell is not based on whether you belive He “died for your sins” (what happens to those who never even heard of it, or before that time?), but on who fed and clothed the hungry, etc. – it seems hand crafted to target Republicans; how ironic! Maybe instead of rejecting a twisted and self-serving development of it (see how justification by faith and not works makes it easy for the wealthy clients of conservative fundamentalism?) Christianity should be reclaimed from the religious right and not surrendered to it.
As for survival, I indulge fancy thoughts of how computer programs are still existing even though the computer doesn’t anymore, hence our minds in superspace, or even “quantum woo” (I wish those who complained about quantum mysticism would hit against unempirical BS operations like many worlds and maybe even decoherence, instead of hypocritically referring to things like “the appearance” of collapse, as some poor post-modern meta-physicist bubbleheads are doing even now in these pages….) But I do respect the idea, appreciated from others in my denomination, that life here and now does have meaning as such. I admit to being touched by Leo Buscaglia’s charming and poignant The Fall Of Freddie The Leaf, about the leaf that forms on the tree, has it’s time, and then falls to it’s death and yet lives on as part of nature. I think there’s more than that, but I respect this little story very much – if that is all, then I can see it being worthwhile anyway.
And BTW yes it’s scandalous that an atheist would have so much trouble getting elected President in this country.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:21 am
Sean, the Democratic Atheist Party will by definition be even more diverse than the religions of the world, if all you have in ‘common’ is atheism.
Atheism does not make one a pacifist per se
Atheism does not make one a socialist working for the greater common good per se
Atheism does not make one inmune to suffering or disease per se
Atheism does not guarantee happiness or ‘jobs’ & homes for all per se.
And Democracy? – which democracy?
Greek (Athenian) democracy?
The Roman Democracy of the Roman empire?
The British democracy of the United Kingdom? – kingdom???
The Spanish democracy – when a nonentity non-elected wanabee king thinks he has the right to sit at the table and tell the President of Venezuela to shut up, because Chavez accuses the Spanish Popular Party of being a Francoist fascist party
or
the US democracy of the founding fathers (with black slaves?)
the US democracy – where foreign policy dictates any terms on oil, trade or climate – do not hamper or threaten the US economy, or rather the status quo of the well off in the US. For lets face it, workers or workers rights have never been a concern in any democracy whose god is ‘profit’
PS – Would Sean a Democratic Atheist President of the US, defend the right of every citizen to believe in whatever god or religion or custom or tradition, as long as they don’t attempt to ram it down the throats of others.
But more important can a democratic atheist US President explain the purpose of living (or rather dying) in suffering and pain from whatever disease, any better than a ‘religious’ president. Does atheism have a magic wand that will make all the ills of the world (or rather the human condition) evaporate into thin air. Or will it be just as powerless as any other absent or non-existent god?
Or will an atheist society still be lost in the same turmoil of crime, unfulfilled desires, unreturned love, hate, disease, pain, suffering and … ‘death’.
Is ultimately an atheist ‘heaven’ any different from any ‘theist’ heaven, other than the decidedly unlikelyhood of 99 virgins – though one can surgically have a hymen cosmetically restored. But before stem cells promise us self-replacing hymens, I should like to see stem cell research offer us self-replacing’ teeth. After all sharks have them, and one can safely presumne sharks are not ‘theist’.
It should be a piece of cake to mimmick for atheist researchers, don’t you think.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Quasar9, many good points. Oh, plenty of atheists are quite illiberal:
Atheism does not make one a pacifist per se
Atheism does not make one a socialist working for the greater common good per se
Atheism does not make one inmune to suffering or disease per se
Atheism does not guarantee happiness or ‘jobs’ & homes for all per se.
Oh yeah, especially the miltant Objectivists, who I run into a lot in Mensa for some reason (eh, snobbery and heartlessless run together? I still find it a gratifying engagement overall.)
BTW, I suspect you are rather much a neo-Platonist, true?
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Quasar9,
Yeah, but one common thread in atheism seems to be skepticism and rational inquiry. There is enough opposition to rational inquiry among other demographics that this alone is enough to unify some rather diverse groups. And there is good enough reason to promote rational inquiry.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Hi Jason,
the common thread of any religion or belief system, is that they are different from another – and think themselves more logical or ‘rational’
As far as humans can be considered ‘rational’ beings, it would be a leap of faith, or an assumption (not an indisputable fact or statistic) to claim that atheism makes humans more or less rational than theism.
It would simply imply a pre-sumption on your side that theism and therefore theists are irrational – or that one needs to be an atheist to understand the world. I’ll agree one may need to be an atheist to ‘fully’ understand an atheist view of the universe, though in my eyes – “god only knows what that might really be or mean” – so to speak. However one does not need to be an atheist to understand maths or physics or chemistry, or that which describes the observable universe. After all as you know, there is more to the universe than meets the eye.
Just an attempt at being humorous. Does not require a counterargument.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Neil,
It comes from old English religious festivals, as in Merrie Olde Englande. My ancestors came from Herefordshire in the 1600′s, to Maryland! The closest town is Hereford, so we haven’t moved much since.
Only if we succeed in transcending the current impasse. Religion is inherently top down as a social institution, while science is predicated on bottom up process. The problem is that with the western tendency toward structured monistic thinking, we lack the appreciation of paradox that is at the heart of eastern Taoist dualism. So it’s the usual us vs. them. Sean prevails upon his readers not to use theological terms to describe objective concepts, not for scientific reasons, but for expressly political reasons; That it might provide aid and comfort to the likes of Mike Huckabee.
As we have both argued, the scientific bias against religious concepts goes to ridiculous lengths. Science is willing to propose other dimensions and universes to explain the physical reality that it presumes to have some grasp of, but won’t accord similar features to the understanding of consciousness. For one thing, atheists tend to have little understanding of the evolution of religious constructs and insist on putting up the most childlike versions as strawmen. Biology has found the line between organisms and eco-systems to be illusionary and the only definition we can currently define life by is that it only exists on this planet, so it could reasonably be argued that the planet is one large, multicellular organism and this Gaia paradigm is quite similar to the original tribal conception of God as a larger spirit of the group.
Yes, absolute is both everything and nothing, but it isn’t ideal form, because it doesn’t have form. Form is subjective, it follows function. Evolution is an upward process in terms of increasing complexity and we can only view it downward, from the perspective of our biologically complex apex. Which is simply the furtherest state of process, not any final destination, as it’s a horizon line of perception, since we cannot know what it is that we haven’t yet learned. Both western religion and science view it from this top down perspective, both looking for their unified field theory. Monotheism declares it to be God. Science is still chasing its tail, as it just can’t escape the reality of paradox.
Michael,
That is what I’m trying to make, since most of the people I know personally are more involved with horses then philosophy or science. By putting my ideas out there, I’m looking for feedback, as that is how I learn and improve my understanding of reality. That I was a little sharp in my response to John Phillips was balanced pushback to his opinion of my efforts.
That’s a good example of top down perspective of early twenty first century idealism. Not exactly the perspective of eighteen hundred BC. male virtues. I think monotheism has destroyed the natural knowledge and psychology of early religions. All those gods, goddesses, heros, nymphs, centaurs, etc. were archtypes that provided educational models for communication of concepts, virtues, vices, laws, principles etc. Much as children learn from narratives, examples and fables. Monotheism has been especially detrimental to the balance of powers between the sexes. Women represented lifegiving and therefore had a strong basis of power, with males as providers and protectors. Monotheism claims both spiritual source and political power as dominant male attributes, seriously tipping this balance for thousands of years and even today we don’t respect the foundation from which everything rises, only the apex to which it aspires.
Regards,
John
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Eve was created from Adam’s rib? Try the other way around.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Religious stuff aside – Huckabee is a progressive and wants to save you from yourself and is a ‘big government’ conservative on steroids. If you thought Bush had no grip on spending, wait until the Huckster gets a hold of the checkbook.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:50 am
Not in the least. Theism requires adherence to at least one irrational belief (the positive belief in the existence of an unevidenced entity, a god). Atheism has no such requirement. It is certainly possible for atheists to be irrational. Humans are rather prone to it after all. But it is at least not required, as atheism, in and of itself, contains no beliefs.
Furthermore, as I stated, a common thread among those who label themselves atheists is active championing of rational inquiry as a good thing in and of itself, something which is sorely lacking among the theists, and is even actively denounced in many circles. This isn’t to say that theists denounce all rational inquiry, rather they tend to separate the world into two separate “domains”, one of which can be investigated through rational inquiry, the other which cannot. And they are invariably rather confident that they know certain aspects of the area which they claim cannot be analyzed rationally. And that is very irrational behavior.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:47 am
beezle,
Personally, I’d like to see an Obama/Edwards ticket.
Jason,
Rational inquiry is presumably objective, but structure requires some subjectivity. Such as that a calendar requires some essentially arbitrary starting date, otherwise it is worthless. It is a simple fact that it is far easier to recognize others subjectivity, then it is to admit to one’s own.
Are three dimensions an objective description of space, or are they the coordinates of the center point?
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Not at all. Rational inquiry is built upon the principle of non-contradiction. This principle is entirely objective. If this were not the case, there could be no progress in science, as arguments could never be settled: you would instead have continual splintering as new ideas gained popularity among certain groups, but failed to gain popularity in others.
Dimensions are not coordinates. Nor are they a description of space. They are a property of space. Whether or not that property applies exactly is open to observation. The description is that space has this property.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 am
John wrote: Science is willing to propose other dimensions and universes to explain the physical reality that it presumes to have some grasp of, but won’t accord similar features to the understanding of consciousness.
I’m not sure that I can clearly present a proposition that suggests the difference between atheism and theism is related to the objective and subjective aspects of human consciousness. Suppose that within space and time God had to evolve in order to survive–just as we will have to evolve to survive. I am sure the classical unchanging nature of God will be presented as a argument against this concept of God being the standard theological concept of God; however, if we consider, as a model, a function that equals one at one and whose first and second derivatives are also one at one, then we can conceptualize a unity that is subjectively unchanging at unity. Please understand, this is offered as an idea to explore not as a statement of fact.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:32 am
Jason,
again we know the affairs of humans and human emotions are for the most part irrational – there is no grand mathematical equation that tells you whether you should cry or laugh, be happy and be sad when your grandmother dies. And as we know, how people feel when their father dies will depend entirely on what their ‘relationship’ was, oh and perhaps some social commitment or other.
Neither theists or atheist are free from human emotions, or from telling little white lies to their spouses, and more little white lies to their children – ok it may not be about santa claus or tooth fairies or little green – but hey you may tell them they are cute, or that they’ll be ok when they are sick – even though they may be ugliest thing on two legs (supposing they have legs), and it may take a ‘miracle’ for them to get well.
Atheists (and theists) may get drunk and have unprotected sex with strangers, or drive recklessly whilst drunk. That does not mean that when they are sober they are not capable of ‘rational’ inquiry, supposing they make it thru to the next day.
Therefore your argument that holding a belief – which in your eyes is irrational – makes those who do not adhere to any such belief more rational, is irrational. The Belief in or lack of belief in the ‘supernatural’ does not make one more or less amenable or adept to ‘rational’ inquiry. It is a ‘wholly’ false presumption on your part – and therefore quite irrational of you.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Jason,
There is an old saying that the opposite of small truths are false, but the opposite of large truths are also true. What about the concept of matter and anti-matter, don’t they essentially contradict each other? Existence is a function of contradictions. Content must be in opposition to context, or it would be neutral and therefore not exist. Think of electric polarities, you can’t have positive without negative. Do being and not-being contradict each other, yet how would you be able to define either, except in terms of the opposite? Doesn’t expansion contradict contraction, yet how could you have one without the other? Are left and right opposites? Yet wouldn’t either be meaningless without refreence to the other? No form is absolute.
Dimensions are coordinates. A plane is two dimensional, but if you didn’t define where these two dimensions are, you wouldn’t be able to locate that plane. Same for a line being one dimensional. Unless you specify the specific line/dimension, it could be anywhere, therefore meaningless. So what about space, you say it is three dimensional, yet say the specific dimensions do not have to be defined, so what good are they, since you wouldn’t be able to use them to reference anything in that space? Dimensions are a map of space, not space itself. They are the model, not the ideal. Suffice to say, any number of such coordinates can be used to map the same space. People do it all the time, then fight over it.
Thomas,
Unity and unit are different concepts. Unity implies neutrality, thus is zero. A unit is a set, which is defined by what is internal and external to that set, so it is not neutral. An eco-system can possess unity, but it is made up of innumerable, everchanging organisms, which balance each other out. When we define an ecosystem as a unit, it becomes a multicellular organism and is separated from some larger ecosystem. This is why the concept of the one universal God breaks down. Unity is not a unit and a unit isn’t about unity.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I may not know much, but I recognize wisdom when I see it. John Merryman, thanks for your words. The idea that “doesn’t get much response” is a deep and perceptive one, concerning a subject that is notoriously difficult to approach linguistically.
In response to your comment #45, I’d point out that “unity” in its typical usage is not a neutral concept but expresses the idea of existence, i.e. other than void, thus its identification with the number 1. The state or concept which represents that which is prior to the void is, in my experience, literally impossible to describe or define in language, but the term nondual is sometimes used to indicate it. But now we’re getting deep into philosophical bulls^H^H^H^H^H discussion more appropriate for another venue.
Stephen (comment #8), if you’re ever in Portland, Oregon I’d like to buy you a beer or coffee or something. You sound like my kind of person.
=================
Not everything is politics. I’ve read Stuart Kauffman quite a bit, and while I agree his tendency to jump from very cogent scientific argument into discussions of the “Sacred” can be disconcerting and, in some cases, undermines the presentation of his ideas, after reading enough of his writing I know what he means by “sacred” and am fine with it. I don’t feel exactly what he feels, I think, but I respect the presentation, especially since his main contribution has been to attempt to bring rigor to a field that needs it.
As for politics: if one is merely trying to approach the issue tactically, avoiding key words like this one is in effect a concession or retreat, and I think quite an unfortunate and unsophisticated one.
There is a linguistic (or socio-linguistic, or whatever) concept known as revalorization which is in play here. The idea is to take a symbol (word or otherwise) which has taken on negative connotations, and instead of running away from it, attempting to create new positive meaning or force a return to prior, neutral or positive meaning. One example is the US LGBTetc community’s use of the word “queer”. The classic example of a symbol which cannot be revalorized is the swastika, though note this is a cultural judgment, and on the Indian subcontinent and in some Native American tribal cultures this symbol has kept its ancient meanings.
Religious conservatives hate it when we use their terms in ways that contradict their own meanings. By refusing to cede the linguistic territory we are in effect fighting their attempt to move the Overton Window by claiming certain words which have positive associations among a large percentage of the voting population as their own. Another classic such word is family.
For me, “sacredness” is a feeling I get at certain times when I am able to perceive a larger-than-usual slice of reality and its absolutely staggering complexity and densely interdependent causal structure across scales from the Planck to the horizon. I see no need for “eternal” forms in any Platonic or prior sense, no need for a creator of any kind, no need for it to “mean” anything except subjectively, no need for any kind of causal explanation, no need for anything but the thing itself. It is profoundly beautiful to me, in fact this is the definition of beauty for me, and I am frequently stunned and amazed that the world is thus.
I will not stop using the term “sacred”, though I will try to make what I mean clear, and offer it as a counterbalance to the faith-based view, which I believe is detrimental to our species in that it restricts the natural path of human cultural evolution.
If the term “sacred” literally corresponds to nothing inside you, then don’t use it, and please accept my condolences. If what it means to you simply doesn’t match what the Bible-thumpers mean when they say it, why let them get away with it?
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Jason, you are wrong that believing in an unevidenced entity (UEE for short! and not to be confused w/ a counterevidenced entity or CEE) is irrational. If an entity is unevidenced (like alien life, “other universes”, the multiple worlds of QM, or even borderline issues like the exact words spoken at an unrecorded meeting in the past, claims about the future (unevidenced until then, and so “irrational” until then?) – then it’s all about how good an *argument* you have for or against it. Not even the claim that the “not exist” option is an inherently preferable default for a UEE (I mean, over and above the specific sway of the particular pro and con) despite the commonly fostered pretense that it is – I have never seen other than circular take it or leave it bluster about that. Some good thinkers say, very to the contrary, that “everything exists” unless it can’t!
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
BTW I am a theistic philosopher, not a very-different “religionist.” I do separate things into the realms of what we actually have available to know (like that specific hits from ostensible “wave functions” actually happen… A-hem…) and the things we have to speculate and provide mere arguments about (one of which is the question of God, but there are many more that aren’t religious type questions.)
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:43 pm
tyler,
Much appeciated. Any wisdom on this end has been earned the hard way. You sound like you have a good grasp of the larger issues.
My description of wisdom is that intelligence is knowledge, while wisdom is editing.
Even the absolute can be dual, as both everything and nothing. I think the concept of the universal one is a goal that has us running in circles.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Neil B. wrote:
whether the wave is “static” (in the silly sense of misinterpreting the ultimate significance of the Minkowski diagram, just because time was simply *graphed* with space all in one piece, as if that actually made time go away?) or “dynamic.”
If by “static” vs. “dynamic” you refer to eternalism (all times are equally real, time is just a sort of dimension) vs. presentism (only the ‘now’ is real, the past and present don’t exist), I think the reason most philosophers and physicists tend to favor eternalism is not just because time is graphed as a dimension on Minkowski diagrams, but because of the relativity of simultaneity in the theory of relativity–two events which happen at the “same instant” in one frame can happen at “different times” in another, and the laws of physics place all reference frames on equal footing.
Neil B. wrote:
Glib talk of our most fundamental experiences (in the classic shared scientific sense too, not the highly individual/subjective sense) as being “illusions” is presumptous and so antithetical to the orginal spirit of empiricism – I see no reason to surrender the empirical given to a bunch of affectedly too-clever-by-half, post-modern pseudoscientists.
Would you consider the notion of time “passing” as opposed to just being a dimension to be one of our most fundamental experiences? If so, do you think Einstein was being a post-modern pseudoscientist when he said “For we convinced physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent” (see here)?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Jesse,
Isn’t that simply due to the fact that given constant rates of transmission of information, ie. the speed of light, the perception of events at different locations is going to reach observers at separate locations at different times? If a star 10 lightyears away blows up at the same time as one 100 lightyears away, we will perceive the closer event as happening 90 years prior to the more distant one. While for an observer equidistant between the two, they would appear to occur at the same moment.
Saying this makes time and space the same is like saying the windchill factor makes temperature and windspeed the same. If you stick a glass of water out on a windy day, when the temperature is above freezing, it doesn’t freeze, no matter what the windchill factor is.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
John Merryman wrote:
Isn’t that simply due to the fact that given constant rates of transmission of information, ie. the speed of light, the perception of events at different locations is going to reach observers at separate locations at different times? If a star 10 lightyears away blows up at the same time as one 100 lightyears away, we will perceive the closer event as happening 90 years prior to the more distant one. While for an observer equidistant between the two, they would appear to occur at the same moment.
No, the relativity of simultaneity in SR is about the time-coordinates retroactively assigned to the events themselves in a given reference frame, not the time-coordinate at which a given observer sees the light from an event. In other words, if I see the light from a supernova in the year 2010, and that supernova is 100 light-years away according to measurements in my frame (different frames measure distances differently because each frame sees moving rulers contract), then I will say the supernova happened at a time-coordinate of t = 1910 in my frame. Likewise, if in 2050 I see the light from a supernova 140 light-years away in my frame, I’ll also say the second supernova happened at a time-coordinate of t = 1910 as well, so the two supernovas are “simultaneous” in my frame. But if someone in a different frame uses the same procedure of noting when they saw the light from each supernova and subtracting a number of years equal to the distance in light-years in that frame, they may find that these two events happened at different t-coordinates in their own frame!
December 4th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Jesse,
Thanks for setting me straight on that. Although I still don’t see how this qualifies time as a dimensional basis for motion, as opposed to a measurement of it. It all boils down to how light travels in different frames, it doesn’t really argue that sequential events co-exist, as two points in space co-exist.
If I’m driving down the road and time is a dimension, it would seem that I was at all points on that drive, just as the entire road exists in space. So why don’t I blurr together with all the other people driving before and after me?
It seems to me that past and future do not physically exist because the energy of which these events consist is manifesting the present. If it was different energy then what the present consists, how would it be in a causal continuum with other points in time, as it was previous states which lead up to this one and the conditions in this one which will define future states.
I feel that change is real and the dimension of time is the construct, ie. distilled narrative. Here is a further exploration of my point;
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/11/27/things-happen-not-always-for-a-reason/#comment-305426
December 4th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Of course it means this. If person A is otherwise identical to person B (on average), but person B holds some irrational beliefs while person A does not, then person A is more likely to be rational.
Yes, a both a theist and an atheist will make irrational decisions. Yes, both a theist and an atheist will make emotional decisions. But because the theist’s position is rests upon a belief that is irrational, and because the atheist is not more likely than the theist to hold other irrational beliefs besides beliefs in deities, the atheist is, on average, more rational.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
John Merryman,
Your view of reality is fundamentally incorrect based upon what we know about the nature of reality. I think I’m done worrying about correcting your incoherent statements, so I’ll just leave it at this: until you learn what we know today about the nature of space-time, you are doomed to be incorrect.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Although I still don’t see how this qualifies time as a dimensional basis for motion, as opposed to a measurement of it. It all boils down to how light travels in different frames, it doesn’t really argue that sequential events co-exist, as two points in space co-exist.
It doesn’t boil down to how light travels, the symmetry between different inertial reference frames in SR extends to all the laws of physics–if relativity is correct there can be no physical reason whatsoever for saying one frame’s way of dividing up space and time is better than any other. So, the only way to preserve the notion of a unique “now” (with only event happening now having any real existence) is to postulate the existence of something like a “metaphysically preferred reference frame”, where the difference between it and other frames has nothing to do with any measurable or observable aspects of reality. This seems rather inelegant, so by Occam’s razor I think there is good reason to say it’s simpler if we dispense with the idea that only events happening “now” really exist and instead put all events throughout spacetime on equal footing.
If I’m driving down the road and time is a dimension, it would seem that I was at all points on that drive, just as the entire road exists in space. So why don’t I blurr together with all the other people driving before and after me?
In the 4D view, you are a sort of 4-dimensional worm, and each 3-dimensional cross-section of this worm represents you at a different moment (different reference frames would take the cross-sections at different angles). For any given spacelike 3D cross-section, of 4D spacetime, the cross-section of “your” worm will be at a different position that the cross-section of someone else’s. So, you don’t blur together with other people any more than two parallel lines on an xy plane, like y=2x and y=2x+4, blur together–it is true that in some sense every line “occupies” every point along the x-axis, but they do it at different values of y (for example, for x=3 the first line reaches that value when y=6, but the second line reaches that value when y=10).
It seems to me that past and future do not physically exist because the energy of which these events consist is manifesting the present. If it was different energy then what the present consists, how would it be in a causal continuum with other points in time, as it was previous states which lead up to this one and the conditions in this one which will define future states.
I don’t understand this paragraph–what do you mean by “energy”? Something different than the ordinary physical notions of kinetic energy, potential energy, and rest mass energy? And causality in the 4D eternalist view is just like a “geometrical” lawlike relation between events in spacetime–we can obviously formulate the notion of “laws” governing sequences even when the sequences aren’t happening in time, like a sequence of numbers (for example, with the sequence 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, … the law is that each number is twice as large as the previous one). Likewise, if I draw some ordered arrangement of dots on a piece of paper you might find a rule which would allow you to predict the arrangement of dots to the right-hand side of a divider based on the arrangement of dots on the left-hand side; this is basically similar to what physicists are doing when they find laws governing the relationships between events in spacetime, in the eternalist view.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Jesse
You wrote, “I think there is good reason to say it’s simpler if we dispense with the idea that only events happening “now” really exist and instead put all events throughout spacetime on equal footing.”
This discussion between you and John Merryman is fascinating. I have always wanted to get ‘my head around’ SR but have usually just become annoyed with myself for having to believe in it as opposed to completely understanding it. Based on your understanding of SR and space-time would you say that for each of us; our birth in the past, our present moment now, and our death in the future are on equal footing and coexistent relative to some reference frame? Thanks
December 5th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Based on your understanding of SR and space-time would you say that for each of us; our birth in the past, our present moment now, and our death in the future are on equal footing and coexistent relative to some reference frame?
“Existence” is really a philosophical issue–as I said, relativity’s lack of a physically preferred reference frame could never absolutely rule out the idea of a “metaphysically preferred frame”, with that frame’s definition of simultaneity being the “true” one so that the philosophy of presentism (which says only events happening ‘now’ really exist) could still make sense. But like I said, this type of philosophical view does seem considerably more inelegant in light of relativity’s placing all the different frames on equal footing in every possible physical respect.
Even if we just talk about simultaneity rather than existence, there still isn’t any inertial frame in SR where the event of my sitting here typing this is simultaneous with the event of my birth, because only events with a “space-like separation” can be simultaneous in any inertial frame. For a more detailed discussion of what it means for events to have a space-like or time-like or light-like separation, see here and here, but basically if two events have a space-like separation that means that a signal traveling at the speed of light from one event would not have time to make it to the other event; for example, an event on Earth in 2007 and an event on Alpha Centauri 4 light-years away in 2008 would have a space-like separation. In contrast, the event of my typing this has a time-like separation from the event of my birth.
However, what we can say is that in SR it should be possible to find some event E some number of light-years away from Earth such that in one frame the event of my typing this is simultaneous with E, and in another frame the event of my birth is simultaneous with E. So if you do place all frames on equal footing in terms of ontology or “existence”, meaning that if any given event is said to have real existence, then any other event which is simultaneous with it in any frame must have real existence too, then this would force you to conclude that the event of my birth exists in exactly the same sense as the event of my typing this.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Jesse,
The term ‘now’ is a way to frame time, but any frame is going to blur with what is inside and outside of it. By saying that only the physical exists, it is not a matter of time, but what physically exists and what doesn’t. You are not arguing that your birth and death co-exist, but that they may appear that way to some other frame. Would this be similar to saying that in the frame of a funhouse mirror, my face appears three feet long, so that means that it is? It seems that what distorts the perception of time is propagation of information over distance varies from one frame to another.
It seems to me the problem is that in order to logically conceive any concept, we must frame it, but that there is no absolute frame. It is similar to the point I made to Jason about space not being three dimensional. If you don’t specify the specific coordinates of those three dimensions, it is a useless concept, because you can’t use them to specify locations in that space, so three dimensions are a map of space, not the territory and any number of such coordinate systems can be used to define the same space. Just as any number of time frames can be used to describe the same events, each giving a different perspective, so that the reality is that space is infinitely dimensional, just as any potential clock is its own dimension of time. Saying that space is three dimensions and time is one dimension is the very assertion of a universal frame that you say relativity disproves.
Jason,
Thank you for your efforts. You’ve shown me more patience then most people do.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
To clarify that last point, four dimensional spacetime is a frame, but there is no universal frame, so it is only our description of space and time that is four dimensional.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Jesse
I think John Merryman makes a good point when he writes:
“You are not arguing that your birth and death co-exist, but that they may appear that way to some other frame. Would this be similar to saying that in the frame of a funhouse mirror, my face appears three feet long, so that means that it is? It seems that what distorts the perception of time is propagation of information over distance varies from one frame to another.”
Finding a concise meaning to event E and its frame of reference seems more vexing than understanding the arrow of time. I hope not so vexing as to cause our discussion to cease however.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
John Merryman wrote:
The term ‘now’ is a way to frame time, but any frame is going to blur with what is inside and outside of it. By saying that only the physical exists, it is not a matter of time, but what physically exists and what doesn’t. You are not arguing that your birth and death co-exist, but that they may appear that way to some other frame.
No, I am arguing that they both exist in exactly the same sense (which I guess is what you mean by ‘co-exist’), precisely because I argue it is natural to place all frames on equal footing in terms of what they say “exists” at a given moment. There is some frame where the event of my death happens at the same moment as some other distant event E; there is some other frame where E happens at the same moment as my birth; so if you say that event E “exists” at some moment, how can you say that one or the other of my birth and death co-exists with E but not both, without privileging one frame over another?
Another way of saying this is just to point out that presentism requires a single universal definition of “now”, and therefore a single “true” definition of simultaneity, and there’d be no way to do this without picking out a single frame and defining it as special, which the laws of physics never do. Like I said, you are free to imagine that one frame is “metaphysically” special even though it is not special in any measurable physical way, but to me this seems too inelegant to be plausible.
Would this be similar to saying that in the frame of a funhouse mirror, my face appears three feet long, so that means that it is?
I don’t know what you mean by “the frame of a funhouse mirror”. In relativity a frame is a coordinate system filling all of space time, and when people talk about the frame of a given object, they mean a frame where that object is at rest, and where distances between position-coordinates and time intervals between time-coordinates would correspond to the measurements of actual rulers and clocks at rest relative to the object.
Perhaps you mean a new type of coordinate system where the distorted apparent distances in the funhouse mirror would be the actual distances, in spite of the fact that actual physical rulers at rest relative to the mirror would not measure these distorted distances. If so, there is a very good reason for not placing this coordinate system on equal footing with all the inertial coordinate systems of SR–in this “funhouse” coordinate system, the laws of physics would have to be written with totally different equations, while the laws of physics all obey identical equations in all the different inertial coordinate systems. If you were given a series of coordinate readings for different causally-related events, you could tell if they were written in some distorted non-inertial coordinate system like the funhouse one or if they were in a standard SR inertial system, but if they were in a standard SR inertial system, there’d be absolutely no way to deduce which inertial system it was, since the laws governing relationships between events look identical in all of them.
It seems that what distorts the perception of time is propagation of information over distance varies from one frame to another.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Again, the key point is that the laws in one inertial frame are identical to the laws in every other.
It seems to me the problem is that in order to logically conceive any concept, we must frame it, but that there is no absolute frame.
As with your earlier comments about “energy”, I think here you are taking a well-defined physics term and mixing it up with some fuzzier definition of the word outside the context of physics. In ordinary language we may sometimes talk about “mental frames”, but these have nothing to do with “frames” in physics, which are just coordinate systems for assigning coordinates to different points in space and time (and in the case of inertial frames in SR it is understood that these coordinates would correspond to the readings on a set of physical rulers and clocks at rest with respect to one another, so if I’m sitting on a ruler/clock system at rest relative to me, and I look through my telescope and see an explosion happen next to the 12 light-year mark on my x-axis ruler when the clock at that mark reads a time of 8 years, then I assign that explosion coordinates x=12 light years, t=8 years).
It is in fact easy to conceive of alternate laws of physics where there would be an absolute frame, or an absolute definition of simultaneity. The old “aether” theory of electromagnetism, in which Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism only held exactly in the rest frame of the aether (a medium which light waves were supposed to be vibrations in, the same way that sound waves are vibrations in air), and you could detect your speed relative to the aether by measuring how light travelled at different speeds in different directions relative to you, does include an absolute frame, namely the aether frame. Likewise, in any theory that does not include time dilation due to movement, like Newtonian physics, it’s easy to come up with an absolute definition of simultaneity–just synchronize two clocks when they are in the same location, then move them apart, without time dilation you can be sure they’ll stay synchronized.
It is similar to the point I made to Jason about space not being three dimensional. If you don’t specify the specific coordinates of those three dimensions, it is a useless concept, because you can’t use them to specify locations in that space, so three dimensions are a map of space, not the territory and any number of such coordinate systems can be used to define the same space. Just as any number of time frames can be used to describe the same events, each giving a different perspective, so that the reality is that space is infinitely dimensional
That doesn’t make sense according to the standard notion of the number of dimensions a space has. For example, on a 2D piece of paper you can create a coordinate system by overlaying a sheet of transparent graph paper with x and y axes drawn on, and you do have an infinite number of choices of the angle at which you orient the x and y axes when you place them over the first paper; but that doesn’t mean the space is infinite-dimensional, it’s 2-dimensional because no matter what choice of coordinate system you make, you only need two coordinates to specify any position on the paper.
Saying that space is three dimensions and time is one dimension is the very assertion of a universal frame that you say relativity disproves.
No more so than saying that the 2D paper above is two-dimensional means you’re asserting an “absolute x-axis” and an “absolute y-axis”–you still have no reason to prefer one choice of orientation for the axes than any other, so there’s no reason to imagine such absolute axes.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
ags wrote:
Finding a concise meaning to event E and its frame of reference seems more vexing than understanding the arrow of time. I hope not so vexing as to cause our discussion to cease however.
An event does not have a frame of reference in SR, only objects with persist over time (and move inertially) do. And it’s just a mathematical matter to find the coordinates of some event E such that in frame A, my birth and E are simultaneous, while in frame B, my death and E are simultaneous–you just have to know the velocities of frames A and B relative to me (assuming I move inertially throughout my life, and am living in a flat SR spacetime), that will be enough to determine the coordinates of an event E that satisfies this. For example, suppose I remain at position x=0 throughout my life in my frame, and I live for 80 years, born at t=0 and dying at t=80. If frame A is moving away from me in the +x direction at v=0.6c, and frame B is moving towards me in the -x direction at v=-0.6c, then if you pick an event E at coordinates x=66 and 2/3 light years, t=40 years in my frame, then this event E will be simultaneous with my birth in frame A and with my death in frame B.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Jesse
In your example is the simultaneousness of these two selected events in A and B with an event (E) in your frame of reference a trivial result of selecting the midpoint (t=40)?
December 5th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Jesse in #50:
I don’t consider Einstein to be a pseudo scientist because of his remarks about time, considering that simultaneity differences make past, present, and future relative – but that isn’t the same as saying they aren’t “real” at all. My more bitter and more confident complaint is against claiming that wave function collapses due to measurements (or just hitting a screen) are “illusions” once the “postulate” of collapse is dropped, etc. The collapses aren’t the sort of thing as the ultimate nature of time and progression, but a specific localization (the same localization BTW regardless of how we interpret time.) You’d need to read my critiques here, but briefly: if there was no collapse, a WF would just stay a wave forever following the equations of evolution, not split into collapses anyway into multiple universes or dependent upon coherence relations.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
ags wrote:
In your example is the simultaneousness of these two selected events in A and B with an event (E) in your frame of reference a trivial result of selecting the midpoint (t=40)?
I’m not sure what you mean by “trivial result”, but if the event was at a different distance than 66 and 2/3 light years, then it would no longer be simultaneous with my birth in the frame moving at 0.6c relative to me, or with my death in the frame moving at -0.6c relative to me. Of course even at different distances one might be able to find some other pair of frames such that this was true, although the distance must always be greater than 40 light years, otherwise E will either lie within the future light cone of my birth or the past light cone of my death, and events which lie within one another’s light cone are not simultaneous in any frame. Likewise, you could pick some other time besides t=40, and as long as you picked a distance such that an event at that position and time was not in the light cone of either my birth or death, you could find some pair of frames where the event was simultaneous with my birth in one and with my death in the other (for any pair of events which have a space-like separation, meaning that they don’t lie within each other’s light cones, you can find some frame where they are simultaneous).
December 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Jesse,
But first you must specify the x and y axes. Then you can specify any position relative to them. It’s like a calendar, in that you need that arbitrary point of reference that is day one, or nothing can be specified. This point goes back through our entire disagreement. Relativity proves there is no absolute frame of reference, then turns around and assumes there is. Just as it’s a blank sheet of paper until you specify the axes, space is just indeterminate volume until you specify the axes and the axes are arbitrary. As for time, any potential clock is an axis of time and the particular circumstances affecting it will affect the rate of change.
That is nonsense. For one thing, all events are not apparent in every frame, due to horizon lines, light cones, loss of information, etc.
Taking the average of all frames still doesn’t create an absolute frame, only an average frame.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Jesse
I was asking if using the midpoint t=40 (in this example) or the midpoint in any example would always work regardless of the velocity at which frames A and B were moving. The distance of 66 and 2/3 light-years, however, would change for different velocities.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:30 am
But first you must specify the x and y axes.
What do you mean, “first”? You think a piece of paper isn’t 2-dimensional until I draw axes on it? You think geometrical relationships on the paper–like the distance between two dots along a straight-line path–don’t exist until we come up with a coordinate system to describe them?
Relativity proves there is no absolute frame of reference, then turns around and assumes there is.
I really have no idea what you’re talking about here. How does it assume there is?
Just as it’s a blank sheet of paper until you specify the axes
It’s a blank sheet of paper with definite geometrical facts about it, like the fact that it’s 2-dimensional, or like the distance between various dots on it or the length of lines on it. You really believe these facts don’t come into existence until you draw axes on the paper?
space is just indeterminate volume until you specify the axes and the axes are arbitrary.
The words “space is just indeterminate volume” mean nothing to me. What would determinate volume look like?
As for time, any potential clock is an axis of time and the particular circumstances affecting it will affect the rate of change.
Sure, any clock can be used to specify an axis of time, just like any line on a piece of paper can be used to specify a y-axis. I don’t see how the first statement proves that we don’t live in a 4D spacetime, any more than the second statement proves the piece of paper is not 2-dimensional.
That is nonsense. For one thing, all events are not apparent in every frame, due to horizon lines, light cones, loss of information, etc.
It’s apparent that you don’t understand the concept of a “frame” in SR, so why are you making confident statements like this? A frame has nothing to do with what any observer knows at any given moment, it’s just a coordinate system for assigning coordinates to all points in spacetime (and each coordinate system is constructed to obey certain rules, like the rule that any two objects whose position coordinates are unchanging in a given frame must be at rest with respect to each other and moving inertially, or the rule that the difference in time-coordinates between two events on the worldline of a clock at rest in a frame must be equal to the difference in readings that the clock showed between the two events). When I say “all frames are on equal footing”, I just mean that the equations of the fundamental laws of physics would look the same when written in any of these coordinate systems. To put this in physical terms, what this means is that if two experimenters who are in closed windowless boxes in motion relative to one another both perform the same experiment, they should always get the same result (or the same statistics when performing the experiment multiple times, if there is any randomness in the fundamental laws). There is no way that they can use differing results on some experiment to determine their different absolute velocities relative to absolute space, for example.
Taking the average of all frames still doesn’t create an absolute frame, only an average frame.
Who said anything about “taking the average of all frames”? What does that phrase even mean?
From discussion with you so far, and from comments you’ve made to some other posts, I think you really are far too confident about your ability to understand physical arguments based only on some sort of verbal parsing of what people are telling you, and you don’t sufficiently appreciate that any verbal argument about physics must be a short-hand for some more precise mathematical statement. You can’t throw around physics terms like “energy” and “frame” and think your arguments make any sense without having a good understanding of the precise meaning of these terms, rather than relying on your intuitive understanding of how they are used in ordinary language.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:32 am
ags wrote:
I was asking if using the midpoint t=40 (in this example) or the midpoint in any example would always work regardless of the velocity at which frames A and B were moving. The distance of 66 and 2/3 light-years, however, would change for different velocities.
You can only use the midpoint if your two frames A and B have equal and opposite velocities, like my choice of A at 0.6c and B at -0.6c. If you chose A to be moving at 0.4c and B to be moving at 0.9c, the event E would no longer have t=40.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Jason,
are you implying you have ‘rational’ proof that there is no god, and by god I do not mean any of those straw men you put up to knock down – but rather a higher being who could be living in a retreat (retired?) in a parallel universe of the megaverse, where no decay and death can enter – and time does not exist.
are you suggesting you have ‘rational’ proof that there is bothing more after death
Well if you do not have ‘rational’ proof, you are no more rational than those who you dismiss as irrational for believing there is a god, and/or life after death.
You may choose to place the onus on proof – on proof that there is a god. But you have no such god given right, I can equally choose to place the onus of proof on you believing there is ‘no’ god. That makes me no more rational or irrational than you.
In politics those who are capitalist may assume (or dismiss) socialists and/or communists as irrational, equally socialists may assume (or dismiss) capitalists and communists to be irrational, and communists may assume (or dismiss) capitalists or socialists as irrational …
but as we move into the ‘cashless’ society – it remains to be shown which or who is the more ‘rational’ – and ultimately which philosophy will win the day.
The universe may be as is, because it cannot be any other way, but as you know the world is as is because ‘men’ (and women) have made it so, and because of the weight of preference by some people which favours it so. But funny when in need even the ‘rich’ want free medical care – unless of course there is a limited supply of surgeons and/or drugs – then greed kicks in and one presumes to be at the front of the qeue according to ability to pay …
Now that may be rational in your eyes, if you nelieve in ability to pay (regardless of how you make your money, or who you rob and kill)
but clearly wholly ‘irrational’ in the eyes of another (who believes in, to each according to their needs, not according to greed).
And among theists and atheists, there are continuously varying numbers on either sides. Averages make for very ephemeral or transient ‘truths’
December 6th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Jesse,
It’s not that they don’t exist, but as you point out;
There are an infinte number of z/y axes possible. The problem is that there is no absolute set of axes, so unless they are specified. What if you had a set of axes that is moving on this plane, would that be three dimensional. It seems two claims are being made here, which contradict; Anything can be located in terms of the axes, but the axes don’t have to be specified. As well as that any event can be equally defined by any set of dimensional axes. Would one centered on a distant star, be equally valid for understanding the details of your life? Would one that made your birth and death simultaneous be equal to one where they were x mumbers of revolutions of this planet around its star? Would potential frames be as valid as actual ones? How about one where your death occurs before your birth? would the sets of coordinates that I and the people around me use to understand me, be valid for understanding your life?
I try to make it as clear as possible that I am not an ex[ert in this field and am trying to learn. That doesn’t mean that I won’t question what doesn’t seem to make sense, given my experience in other fields is that people put up as much bs as they can get away with. So if it appears to me that the emperor is naked, I’ll mention that and if someone convinces me otherwise, I’m equally willing to accept their logic, even if it may take me some time to put it all in a frame I can absorb. And I thank you and anyone else willing to present their perspective, even if I may not be wholy accepting of it.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Jesse
Thanks, I was thinking that was the case. In considering ontological implications, the selection of equal and opposite velocities is a natural choice. The possibility of some (E) in midlife that allows for birth and death to be thought of as simultaneous events is a significant fact if it is really a fact. Much work remains to be done, but the possibility of (E) and a drive to manipulate velocities to achieve a balance around that (E) might help explain both life and a proclivity of certain advanced organisms to form religious concepts.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Jesse,
In a rush this morning. Reviewing your response;
I still don’t see how this refutes my point that four dimensional spacetime is the frame and the reason it’s not space itself is because any number of such frames can be used to define the same space.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Jesse,
By saying that spacetime is four dimensional, rather then any specific frame/coordinate system.
That which had all its dimensions specified.
In a four dimensional spacetime;
You can’t have sequential events occurring simultaneously, as might appear when referencing information from other frames, as described here;
I would say the priviliged frame is the four dimensions which most closely approximates your life.
This is essentially a strawman, because physical reality exists as momentum, as well as position. Mostly it’s energy speeding around at the speed of light and the reason we perceive it as flashes of instants is because our brain functions by turning all this information into sequential mental constructs, ie. thoughts, like frames of a movie. Otherwise it would just be a blur of light. Of course our brain is like the projector light, moving from one frame on to the next, while our mind is the series of thoughts/frames, receding into the past.
The concept of an absolute now would lack momentum and therefore the form derived from this activity.
I’ll leave it at this, as I’m testing your patience a bit more then is wise.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
ags wrote:
Thanks, I was thinking that was the case. In considering ontological implications, the selection of equal and opposite velocities is a natural choice. The possibility of some (E) in midlife that allows for birth and death to be thought of as simultaneous events is a significant fact if it is really a fact. Much work remains to be done, but the possibility of (E) and a drive to manipulate velocities to achieve a balance around that (E) might help explain both life and a proclivity of certain advanced organisms to form religious concepts.
Your statement about religion and life trying to “manipulate velocities” makes no sense to me, there is nothing special about E and it has no causal effects on us, I was just using it as a mathematical example of different events being simultaneous in different frames. I could equally well have said that there is some event E such that in one frame it is simultaneous with my 30th birthday and another it is simultaneous with my 31st, or I could have said there is some event A which is simultaneous with my birth in one frame and my 27th birthday in another, and some event B which is simultaneous with my 27th birthday in one frame and my death in another. The point is just that as long as you put all frame’s definitions of simultaneity on equal footing with regards to what “exists”, then you end up being forced to conclude that every event in spacetime exists in exactly the same sense.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
John Merryman wrote:
There are an infinte number of z/y axes possible. The problem is that there is no absolute set of axes, so unless they are specified. What if you had a set of axes that is moving on this plane, would that be three dimensional. It seems two claims are being made here, which contradict; Anything can be located in terms of the axes, but the axes don’t have to be specified. As well as that any event can be equally defined by any set of dimensional axes. Would one centered on a distant star, be equally valid for understanding the details of your life? Would one that made your birth and death simultaneous be equal to one where they were x mumbers of revolutions of this planet around its star? Would potential frames be as valid as actual ones? How about one where your death occurs before your birth? would the sets of coordinates that I and the people around me use to understand me, be valid for understanding your life?
Frames are just mathematical tools for assigning coordinates to events and writing equations for the laws of physics in terms of these coordinates, I don’t know what you mean by asking whether different frames are “equally valid for understanding the details of your life”. Again you seem to be making fuzzy conceptual arguments based on nebulous interpretations of words, rather than understanding their strict technical definitions and basing your arguments on those.
I agree that there are an infinite number of x/y axes possible on the piece of paper. But do you agree or disagree that the paper is 2-dimensional without the need to specify any particular set of axes? Do you agree or disagree that geometrical facts about the paper, like the distances between points on it, have definite answers without the need to draw coordinates? (even though you can calculate this distance using a given coordinate system, by using the pythagorean theorem which says the distance will be the square root of [difference between the two points' x-coordinates]^2 + [difference between the two points' y-coordinates]^2 …note that the result you get for the distance will be independent of your choice of coordinate system, you can draw a different set of x/y axes and get the same answer.) If you agree, I don’t see what’s so problematic about saying that spacetime is inherently 4-dimensional without the need to specify any particular set of axes, and that the spacetime interval between events, which is analogous to distance on paper in the sense that it’s independent of what frame you use, is a “geometrical” fact about spacetime that doesn’t depend on having a coordinate system (though like distance it can be calculated in any particular coordinate system…it’s equal to the square root of [difference between time coordinates * the speed of light]^2 – [difference between x coordinates]^2 – [difference between y coordinates]^2 – [difference between z coordinates]^2 ).
I try to make it as clear as possible that I am not an ex[ert in this field and am trying to learn. That doesn’t mean that I won’t question what doesn’t seem to make sense, given my experience in other fields is that people put up as much bs as they can get away with. So if it appears to me that the emperor is naked, I’ll mention that and if someone convinces me otherwise, I’m equally willing to accept their logic, even if it may take me some time to put it all in a frame I can absorb. And I thank you and anyone else willing to present their perspective, even if I may not be wholy accepting of it.
But you do seem to have a rather high level of confidence in your ability to take technical terms from physics and use them in arguments without having clear technical definitions in mind. It’s been noted in psychology that people with less ability in a given area often tend to have the most exaggerated judgments about their own abilities, because they don’t know enough to realize how little they know about the subject, a paradox discussed in the paper Unskilled and Unaware of it: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. It seems to me that you are in danger of falling into this sort of mental trap, so it might do you some good to be a little more cautious about jumping to the conclusion that you understand an argument just because the words’ nontechnical meanings resonate with you in a way that seems to make sense intuitively.
I still don’t see how this refutes my point that four dimensional spacetime is the frame and the reason it’s not space itself is because any number of such frames can be used to define the same space.
How can “four dimensional spacetime” be a “frame”, when a frame specifically refers to a coordinate system? This is like saying a piece of paper is really a set of x/y axes, it just doesn’t make any sense at all.
I really have no idea what you’re talking about here. How does it assume there is?
By saying that spacetime is four dimensional, rather then any specific frame/coordinate system.
More nebulous statements–”absolute reference frame” has a specific meaning in physics, unless you can show how “saying that spacetime is four dimensional” gives us a definite procedure for defining an absolute velocity or an absolute definition of simultaneity, then you’re abusing the term. And going back to the paper analogy, does saying a piece of paper is two-dimensional mean we are assuming an absolute set of x/y axes? If not, why are you treating spacetime fundamentally differently?
That which had all its dimensions specified.
What does it mean to “specify” dimensions, exactly? Is it the same thing as specifying a set of particular x-y-z axes? If so, are you saying that space is not 3-dimensional until we specify a particular set of axes? Why not, when dimensionality refers to the minimum number of coordinates that would be needed in any coordinate system defined throughout the space, without the need to specify any specific coordinate system?
You can’t have sequential events occurring simultaneously, as might appear when referencing information from other frames, as described here;
The statement above says nothing about “sequential events occurring simultaneously”, so what do you mean “as described here”? And what do you mean by “other frames”–what was the first frame? Saying “You can’t have sequential events occurring simultaneously” is a lot like saying “you can’t have dots on a piece of paper that have different y-coordinates also having the same y-coordinate”–surely you wouldn’t argue there is some “real” truth about whether dots on a piece of paper have the same or different y-coordinates before we specify some coordinate system on the paper?
I would say the priviliged frame is the four dimensions which most closely approximates your life.
What does it mean for a “frame” (which again, is just a coordinate system) to “approximate my life”? Would different individuals have different “privileged frames”? If so, then this would already be incompatible with presentism, which says there is a single objective truth about simultaneity, so that only events happening in the objective “now” really exist.
This is essentially a strawman, because physical reality exists as momentum, as well as position.
What is a strawman? Presentism? I’m just giving you the accepted definition of this philosophical view. If you disagree with the notion that “only things in the present exist” than you are not a presentist. But if you also disagree with the “eternalist” philosophy that says all things in all times are on equal ontological footing (they all ‘exist’ in the same sense), then you really need to spell out exactly what philosophy of time you are advocating.
The concept of an absolute now would lack momentum and therefore the form derived from this activity.
In physics one can talk about instantaneous momentum at a particular moment, so presumably a presentist would say each object’s instantaneous momentum is part of what exists in the present. But if neither you or I is advocating the presentist view, then we don’t really need to talk about, although as I said it would be helpful if you explained what alternative view you are proposing about time and what “exists”.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Jesse
My point is that prior to a theory of special relativity, a biblical statement “That one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day” would only have made sense as a figurative expression with no literal meaning. However, the statement indicates that at least some people in the past, people obviously thinking in religious terms conceptualized different frames of reference without any scientific reason to do so.
With SR, we can now describe a velocity slightly below the speed of light at which the statement becomes literally true. For some reason there appears to have been an innate ability to incorporate SR in an informal faith-based manner while formally in our modern science-based world it seems paradoxical.
I am suggesting that the connection between religion and life might arise out of relativistic aspects of space-time. At some level of complexity, information might encode a beginning and an end—a birth and a death. Cells can turn on and off—live and die. Coding continues (or evolves) in an effort to preserve the middle ground or niche between the two poles. Primitive olfactory senses develop in such a manner as to invoke powerful memories of past events in space-time, memories that mark moments of consciousness where life exists.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
My point is that prior to a theory of special relativity, a biblical statement “That one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day” would only have made sense as a figurative expression with no literal meaning. However, the statement indicates that at least some people in the past, people obviously thinking in religious terms conceptualized different frames of reference without any scientific reason to do so.
They didn’t conceptualize “different reference frames”, because they didn’t imagine this had anything to do with velocity, nor did they conceptualize other aspects of different frames like length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity (which is what we had been discussing, not time dilation). The basic concept that different beings might perceive time at different speeds doesn’t require that we imagine they had supernatural insight into laws of physics whose empirical effects would have been totally invisible to them–we all know the phrase “time flies when you’re having fun”, and there are plenty of mind-altering drugs and other ways of going into an altered psychological state in which time seems to flow at a different rate than usual, none of which has anything to do with relativity.
With SR, we can now describe a velocity slightly below the speed of light at which the statement becomes literally true.
It’s important to understand that there is no concept of absolute speed in relativity. If you are moving at a speed close to the speed of light relative to me, then your clock will run slow in my rest frame, but this is all completely reciprocal–in your rest frame, since it is my speed that is close to that of light, it is my clock that will be running slow compared to yours! This is just another way in which ancient ideas about time running differently for gods or fairies or other supernatural beings are different from how things work in SR.
I am suggesting that the connection between religion and life might arise out of relativistic aspects of space-time. At some level of complexity, information might encode a beginning and an end—a birth and a death.
There’s no reason to think that relativity should allow violations of causality, which is what you seem to be suggesting (i.e. information about a system’s own future being somehow accessible to, or having an influence on, the same system at earlier times).
December 6th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Wow, this discussion is getting very interesting. Reminder and query for comments: If we imagined a “wave function” that was real in any sense at all, it gets very difficult to imagine a “realistic” way for it to instantaneously “collapse” upon measurement/impact in light of (heh) the relativity of simultaneity. And yet, one must imagine:
1. That an electron or photon (especially the former?) really has some “condition” as it propagates away from emission, and *it* is a real thing and can’t be brushed off as “information” etc.
2. It really can’t be going in a classical trajectory, from interference experiments etc.
3. When there is an impact, counter click, etc., then of course the particle can no longer be found anywhere else, and so “something” can’t be all over the place anymore,
4. Which leads right back to a train-wreck (remember?) regarding simultaneity.
It just doesn’t add up, and I am not impressed with post-modern blatherings about the collapse being an illusion, multiple worlds, decoherence etc. (as I have said, any failure to collapse in this creepy way would just leave a wave evolving “as a wave” forever, not a way to explain or allocate away localizations.)
My answer is to quit pretending that the universe is a rational system that we can make a “picture of,” and just accept it as a scheme for producing results according to “a way to be.” Interpret that as you wish.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Neil B. wrote:
It just doesn’t add up, and I am not impressed with post-modern blatherings about the collapse being an illusion, multiple worlds, decoherence etc. (as I have said, any failure to collapse in this creepy way would just leave a wave evolving “as a wave” forever, not a way to explain or allocate away localizations.)
But “a wave evolving as a wave forever” is exactly what is postulated by the many-worlds interpretation. At every moment, the state of the universal wavefunction is a superposition of many different classical outcomes (this is just a mathematical property of the wavefunction in QM, regardless of whether you accept the MWI or not), as I understand it the MWI basically interprets each of these elements of the superposition as being equally “real” from their own perspective (though I haven’t studied the MWI too carefully so you should probably take this summary with a grain of salt).
My answer is to quit pretending that the universe is a rational system that we can make a “picture of,” and just accept it as a scheme for producing results according to “a way to be.” Interpret that as you wish.
Well, that’s basically the Copenhagen interpretation in a nutshell (the CI is not usually understood to be the same as the notion of an ‘objective collapse’).
Note that there are a few other intepretations of QM available, like Bohmian mechanics and the transactional interpretation. None of them make any distinct predictions from the ordinary “shut up and calculate” approach (although it might be possible that elements of one of these interpretations could be incorporated into a future theory of quantum gravity in such a way that they did lead to real predictions), so take your pick!
December 6th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Jesse
Are you saying there is no way to conceptualize a dilation of time in which a single day in one frame equates to 365,000 days in another frame?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Are you saying there is no way to conceptualize a dilation of time in which a single day in one frame equates to 365,000 days in another frame?
In relativity you could have two observers A and B such that, in the rest frame of A, B’s clocks would be running 365,000 times slower than A’s. But it would also be true that in the rest frame of B, A’s clocks would be running 365,000 times slower than B’s. There is no “objective” truth about whose clocks are running slower in SR. And I’m also saying that the fact that some ancient people imagined the idea of one being’s time running slower than another’s hardly shows they had advanced knowledge of relativity, since it doesn’t require a huge leap of imagination to come up with this basic idea (again, there are all kinds of circumstances in which people feel like time is passing slower or faster than usual).
December 7th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Jesse
You wrote: (again, there are all kinds of circumstances in which people feel like time is passing slower or faster than usual).
Yes there are, probably many of us have experienced that phenomenon in high stress or existence threatening circumstances. Each of us has a central nervous system that extends from our head to our toe, but if all moments between birth and death are allowed to be on equal footing in space-time, we also have to consider our CNS extends throughout space-time. I do not believe the ramifications of such a fact have been fully explored by rational analysis. I support such an effort since it may yield long sought information.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:27 am
ags wrote:
This might even lead us to the legendary phenomenon called “memory”.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Each of us may form a wave of energy whose wavelength and period are a function of our lifetime.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Jesse,
That’s an interesting point with regard to space. An idea that has occurred to me is that space is the real absolute. That geometry defines it, but doesn’t create it, so that the geometric zero isn’t the dimensionless point, but empty space. This gets into cosmology though and whether Omega=1, so that all the gravitational contraction and expanding redshift balance out into euclidian space. Not to totally go off on a tangent, but it would seem that if redshift is caused by space expanding from a point, then the speed of light should increase as space expands, otherwise it is measuring a stable dimension of space, not an expanding one.
You agree that while two axes define a specific plane, a plane does not specify a specific set of coordinates. Geometry defines space, while space is the basis for geometry, not a creation of it.
My real issue in this discussion has been whether time is an actual dimension, or is just modeled as one. That is the relationship between different coordinate systems moving about in the same space. This isn’t just physics, it’s politics as well, ie. how these different frames interact.
My curiosity exceeds my embarrassment. My interest in physics is the same as my interest in history, or politics, or economics. It is an increasingly unstable world and I feel it behooves me to gain as firm a grasp of what is happening as possible. If I was to take the time, I’m sure I can come up with quite a few examples where the professionals became so insulated from the larger world that they eventually lost touch with reality. It is safe to say that quite a few PhD’s are in this boat, since so many theories being put forth contradict each other. At least my living doesn’t depend on this.
In the fundamental duality of life, there are generalists and specialists, with advantages and disadvantages to both. If there were only generalists, we would still be living in caves and hunting rabbits with sticks. The problem for specialists is that they can become disconnected from the larger context and the towers of Babel they like to construct fall down when the divergence gets too great. Life is one step back for every two forward and generalists tend to be more adaptable.
Four dimensions are not a coordinate system? It seems to me that you assume the four dimensional map is the territory. Any four dimensional coordinate system can define the same territory, but from different perspectives. Absolute perspective is an oxymoron.
That referred to the quote which followed, not the preceding one. Here it is again;
It seems to me that you are saying all frames exist as one larger frame, so that if there is one comparable to E=b and another where E=d, then b=d, even in the original frames where they are not equal.
The problem is comparing frames that are in motion. The notion of stable dimensions breaks down, even if the principles by which they interact are stable.
You might want to think how this applies to and defines politics, as well as religion. We all consitiute our own frames and then we try to create larger frames of agreement, even when it means agreeing to nonsense, which has the added advantage of placing all parties in a strange frame. It explains a lot of psychology as well.
I’m arguing that time isn’t fundamental, either as point or line. I’m arguing it is a consequence of motion, similar to temperature, rather then dimensional basis for it, like space. Consider a thermal medium, say a pot of hot water, with lots of water molecules moving about. If we were to construct a time keeping device out of this situation, we would take the motion of one of these points of reference and measure it against the medium it is moving through. The point is the hand and the medium is the face of the clock. Obviously all the other points are hands of their own clocks, but are medium/face for all other clocks. As Newton pointed out, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” So the motion of any point/hand is balanced by the reaction of the medium/face of the clock. To the hand of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise.
Time is described as a dimension because it has direction from past events to future ones, but these events go from being future potential to past circumstance. In the thermodynamic medium, the relationships of these points constitute an event, even though the perspective is different for every point. While any and all of the points go from past events to future ones, the medium against which any point is being judged is the overall context, which once created, is displaced by the next, so this event goes from present to past. Tomorrow, today will be yesterday.
The collapsing wave of potential is the future turning into past circumstance, which we distill out as linear narrative, Say the quantum event, the bottle of poison, the cat, the box, our eyes. This narrative is simply the stream of specific detail, much like a particular molecule traveling through the larger medium and the series of encounters involved. Yet, as I pointed out in the thermal framing, there are innumerable other points of reference also describing their own narrative and all this activity exists in an equilibrium, so there are waves of all these other narratives crashing around and nothing really collapses to a point, just continues on its merry way, because every narrative amounts to its own particular linear dimension, going its own particular way and there is no one dimension of time.
This isn’t presentism because time isn’t primary. That doesn’t make it imaginary, it puts it on a level with temperature and I don’t go around putting my hand on hot stoves. If you want to describe something ten lightminutes away as being ten minutes in the past, that’s certainly logical, but drawing convoluted comparisions of how different events can appear in different sequences, from different perspectives, somehow proves that time is a fundamental dimension and change is an illusion doesn’t pass the test with me.
The only absolute temperature is the complete absence of it and I suppose the same applies to time. Which doesn’t leave a line or a point, but just empty space. Of course, space fluctuates, so I guess absolute time and temperature don’t exist. Or don’t non-exist. Whichever.
Regards,
John
December 7th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Neil,
December 8th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Greg Egan wrote:
This might even lead us to the legendary phenomenon called “memory”.
I think neurophysiologists have a pretty good handle on the mechanics of memory, but consciousness is something else. It is in this area that I expect a cosmic connection may be uncovered. When comparing a computer simulated image of galaxies combining under the influence of gravity to form clusters with an image of actual neurons in the brain tissue of a cat I was amazed by an apparent similarity between the two pictures. I found myself wondering if the correspondence between the two patterns connoted a deeper connection between the cosmos and mammalian brain. Is it significant that, in using a single set of mathematical instructions to model accurately the formation of galaxy clusters, a modern supercomputer will graphically depict a structural pattern common to both neural and interstellar systems? Why does the neuronal system of the mammalian brain develop its connections in a manner that mimics the pattern of a gravitational coalescence of galaxies? Is evolving consciousness an analogue to gravitational coalescence? Will understanding dark energy reveal insights into our own consciousness. I think it is possible.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Can I interest you in a mouldy piece of bread that looks exactly like the Shroud of Turin? Bids start at $1,000.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Greg Egan
That’s a little expensive but if it might help understand something new it might be worth it.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
John in # 88: Not a bad analogy or model, but it still doesn’t derive the impact being one place and not any other in a given case. As I explained, no mathematical model can do that (since mathematics itself is fully deterministic by nature, and can only borrow from physical, genuinely unpredictable processes, or use pseudorandom generators like digits of pi etc.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Neil,
What if this energy release effectively reduced the pressure/energy of the wave? That way, as particle, it is reduced to one point/strike, yet if this doesn’t happen, it’s still a wave. Consider that lightning bolts only really occur when they strike the ground. There are frequently lightning exchanges between clouds, but they are more diffuse flashes, then bolts. Whether light is measured as particle or wave depends on the type of test involved. I haven’t read up on the methods used, but possibly the one which measures light as particle is more electrically conductive than the one which measures it as wave. I’m certainly no expert, but you might find plasma cosmology interesting, if you haven’t looked into it already.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
An interesting article;
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19841/page2/
“Using novel voltage-sensitive nanoparticles, researchers have found electric fields inside cells as strong as those produced in lightning bolts. Previously, it has only been possible to measure electric fields across cell membranes, not within the main bulk of cells. It’s not clear what causes these strong fields or what they might mean. But now that it’s possible to measure them, researchers hope to learn about disease states such as cancer by studying these electric fields.”
December 11th, 2007 at 8:30 am
John Merryman
How does the idea of our cells having internal electric fields square with your thoughts on the passage of time? Those electric fields would exist in space-time as all other fields do. It does not seem that the fields would have any relationship to yesterday, today, or tomorrow; they just are. Any thoughts?
December 11th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
ags,
The connection was through plasma cosmology;
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/
With its focus on electricity.
My observation about time is non Big Bang geometry and I think this concept does a good job of explaining the forces involved.
As I’ve argued, reality just is. Time is a consequence of change, not cause of it.