1. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Mar '06 16:37
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Just a short response.

    You're confusing our inability to visualise a being (or state) "outside" space-time with our (alleged) inability to know (or conceptualise) such a being.

    This might make it clear - human beings cannot visualise what a four-dimensional object would look like (well, Penrose excepted). That doesn't mean we canno ...[text shortened]... alise and attain knowledge about all kinds of things that are "outside" the natural order.
    Human beings are able to conceptualise and attain knowledge about all kinds of things that are "outside" the natural order.

    I concede that I might just have limited comprehension here. So a couple questions—

    (1) What kinds of things do we have knowledge about “outside” the natural order.

    To put this roughly, since my brain is pretty rough this morning, I mean things other than the “God-type of things,” about which theists and atheists argue whether we can have such knowledge, and whether we can even coherently conceptualize such a being (as opposed to, say, the ease with which we can conceptualize a Zeus).

    (2) Can you give me an example of something “outside” the natural, dimensional order without using analogous concepts from that order to do so (e.g., such words as “outside,” or “before” ).

    If such an example or description simply requires mathematics that I do not have (hence my limited comprehension), I’ll take your word for it.
  2. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    29 Mar '06 16:45
    I will offer abstract thought
    (with math substracted,
    or not!).
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    29 Mar '06 16:50
    Originally posted by vistesd
    [b]Human beings are able to conceptualise and attain knowledge about all kinds of things that are "outside" the natural order.

    I concede that I might just have limited comprehension here. So a couple questions—

    (1) What kinds of things do we have knowledge about “outside” the natural order.

    To put this roughly, since my brain is pretty rough th ...[text shortened]... s mathematics that I do not have (hence my limited comprehension), I’ll take your word for it.[/b]
    Well there are things known to be outside our view of what is the natrual order of things:
    1) Dark matter. This stuff cannot be detected except indirectly, regular matter seems to go through it as easily as if it were a ghost. It does however, cause galaxies to clump together and to act more like the whole galaxy is on one big plate turning all together rather than what you would expect if the stuff of the galaxies we can observe were all that was there. If there was no dark matter in galaxies, the inside would rotate faster than the outside like rings within rings, you would expect the outside to be going very slowly. But that is not what happens in reality. The outside goes almost as fast as the inside parts as if it were like I said, all on one big plate. It does that because the dark matter is a conglomeration of SOMETHING that has a lot more matter in it than the total of the visible stuff and is spread out over a much larger volume of space than the visable galaxy. That makes the galaxy as a whole rotate as if it were on one big plate because the gravitational pull of the dark matter overpowers the gravity generated by the galaxy as a whole. Sorry for the long winded explanation, but that is but ONE example of stuff out of the natural order.
  4. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Mar '06 17:01
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I will offer abstract thought
    (with math substracted,
    or not!).
    Nicely put! 🙂

    You mean thinking about thinking? It may be that I just don’t tend to think at a sufficiently high level of abstraction.

    I will offer no-mind, then,
    With which some of those in Zen
    Claim the power to unwind
    Tangles of the time-space bind.

    😉
  5. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Mar '06 17:091 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well there are things known to be outside our view of what is the natrual order of things:
    1) Dark matter. This stuff cannot be detected except indirectly, regular matter seems to go through it as easily as if it were a ghost. It does however, cause galaxies to clump together and to act more like the whole galaxy is on one big plate turning all together ra ...[text shortened]... for the long winded explanation, but that is but ONE example of stuff out of the natural order.
    Thank you. That helps.

    I think I now see the problem: I tend to use "natural" solely as the opposite of "supernatural." What is outside our understanding of the natural order, or the natural order as we know it now, does not lead me to posit the supernatural. However, I think I have not been clear about the narrow sense in which I was using the term--or worse, I myself may have been using it in two different ways, confusing the distinction.

    Would the concept of multi-verses be another example?
  6. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    29 Mar '06 17:161 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Human beings are able to conceptualise and attain knowledge about all kinds of things that are "outside" the natural order.

    I concede that I might just have limited comprehension here. So a couple questions—

    (1) What kinds of things do we have knowledge about “outside” the natural order.

    To put this roughly, since my brain is pretty rough this ...[text shortened]... s mathematics that I do not have (hence my limited comprehension), I’ll take your word for it.[/b]
    Not sure precisely what you're asking here. I thought four-dimensional objects and i were examples of such things.

    If not, how about the concept of infinity?

    EDIT: A good monist (Vedanta) friend of mine once said, "When we can understand infinity, we will see Brahman".
  7. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    29 Mar '06 17:241 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Nicely put! 🙂

    You mean thinking about thinking? It may be that I just don’t tend to think at a sufficiently high level of abstraction.

    I will offer no-mind, then,
    With which some of those in Zen
    Claim the power to unwind
    Tangles of the time-space bind.

    😉
    Perhaps...


    Here's another scribble:

    peered into the enormity
    from the oceanside;
    consequence unraveling,
    uncurling, in 3/4 time. a
    wave swells, raises
    its head as it swims
    toward the shore (sounds like
    one hand clapping),
    then finds its mate in
    the sand, crashed into
    smashed into countless wet pieces
    of salt and sea:
    coming coming came quietly
    pulls out in
    meek retreat.
    silence precluding thundering
    awe at cyclic wondering
    paths of sea:
    set in sand or stone?
  8. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Mar '06 17:31
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Perhaps...


    Here's another scribble:

    peered into the enormity
    from the oceanside;
    consequence unraveling,
    uncurling, in 3/4 time. a
    wave swells, raises
    its head as it swims
    toward the shore (sounds like
    one hand clapping),
    then finds its mate in
    the sand, crashed into
    smashed into countless wet pieces
    of salt and sea:
    coming ...[text shortened]... .
    silence precluding thundering
    awe at cyclic wondering
    paths of sea:
    set in sand or stone?
    I'll rec that! 🙂
  9. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    29 Mar '06 17:451 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    So, your argument really deals with foreknowledge.

    As I noted in my post to Freaky. At least from the point of view of this time-space cosmos, I think that God’s knowing everything “all at once” reduces to foreknowledge (again, not using this term in the technical/theological sense as in Freaky’s “Divine Decree” thread).

    What this mea l spells (at least such spells are subject to the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy).
    At least from the point of view of this time-space cosmos, I think that God’s knowing everything “all at once” reduces to foreknowledge

    But then we aren't really talking about God per se, but a projection of God into our time. This reminds me a bit of the map/territory discussion.

    To argue that causality is not temporally unidirectional is not the same thing as to argue that there is no temporality whatsoever.

    It means that temporal succession of causes and effects is not necessary, even if it is common.

    If causality is not temporally unidirectional, then the same situation holds at the “juncture” of both t(e)-t and t(e)+t.

    Not sure what you mean by this.

    I would argue that at t(e)-t:...

    And I'm saying that you're arguing that on the basis of an assumption linking temporal succession and causal succession. Without that assumption, you cannot make those arguments.

    In fact, if you look at discussions of causes in classical metaphysics, four types of causes are listed (Aristotle) - formal, material, efficient (what is now generally referred to as 'cause'😉 and final. Of these, the final cause is always in the future!

    If causal sequences in this world are not at least in some sense temporally unidirectional, then it is logically possible that “tomorrow” (from our perspective) the entire history of the world up till “now” will appear to us to be radically different.

    It's possible, but not necessary.

    We simply do not have an epistemology that is atemporal

    Define 'knowledge'.
  10. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Mar '06 18:192 edits
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    [b]At least from the point of view of this time-space cosmos, I think that God’s knowing everything “all at once” reduces to foreknowledge

    But then we aren't really talking about God per se, but a projection of God into our time. This reminds me a bit of the map/territory discussion.

    To argue that causality is not temporally

    [b]We simply do not have an epistemology that is atemporal


    Define 'knowledge'.[/b]
    [/b]But then we aren't really talking about God per se, but a projection of God into our time. This reminds me a bit of the map/territory discussion.

    Agreed. And I argue that the projection (map) is all that is effable. And since the only complete map is the territory (in terms of detail as well as wholeness), all maps are provisional and subject to error. So, just as we come back to the map and the territory, we come back to our old disagreement about effability...

    My argument is simply that once you posit a God that is separate from the natural order of reality in which we live, you have to explain how that God is subject to our epistemology which is inextricably bound up with that natural order of reality (can we simply say “the nature of the cosmos,” for short?).

    To talk of God “bridging the gap” via divine revelation simply expands the question, since any such revelation is itself a projection. Now if you argue from God to revelation, then God is your assumptive base; if you argue the other way ‘round, the revelation is your assumptive base. I am not saying that you can’t construct a logically consistent theological system from either one. But in either case, you start with the assumption (axiom?) of “supernaturality.”

    Not sure what you mean by this.

    I was thinking in terms of a timeline in which causality could be bi-directional. I was using t(e)-t and t(e)+t as the “instants before the collapse” so to speak, at which points all casually determining events have occurred. This was probably both unnecessary and erroneous. Simpler just to say, whether causation moves unidirectional or bi-directionally, at some time, t(e), the Event E is wholly causally determined.

    Thus, this is an attempt to remove unidirectionality, also as an answer to your next objection.

    Define 'knowledge'.

    In terms of episteme, justified true belief. However, in terms of God’s omniscience, I think I am using a more strict “justified true certain belief.”
  11. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    29 Mar '06 21:541 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    But then we aren't really talking about God per se, but a projection of God into our time. This reminds me a bit of the map/territory discussion.

    Agreed. And I argue that the projection (map) is all that is effable. And since the only complete map is the territory (in terms of detail as well as wholeness), all maps are provision f God’s omniscience, I think I am using a more strict “justified true certain belief.”[/b]
    (Sorry - having to do a lot of brief responses today)

    And I argue that the projection (map) is all that is effable. And since the only complete map is the territory (in terms of detail as well as wholeness), all maps are provisional and subject to error.

    I should have clarified. A 'projection' of God (in this case) would be a position like "From my perspective God knows events that are in my future". This is a very different animal from the idea of a map as, say, the Christian concept of God.

    My argument is simply that once you posit a God that is separate from the natural order of reality in which we live, you have to explain how that God is subject to our epistemology which is inextricably bound up with that natural order of reality (can we simply say “the nature of the cosmos,” for short?)

    My counter-argument is that we do know about all kinds of things that do not (or cannot) exist in the natural order - four-dimensional objects, complex numbers, infinity (all mathematical concepts, admitted - but that's my area of familiarity). As I said earlier, if something is not in (or "outside" ) the natural order, we cannot visualise it except in analogical terms (for instance, complex numbers and coordinate plane geometry; God and Hali's "filmreel"* etc.) - that doesn't mean we cannot conceptualise (or come to sure knowledge about) it on its own terms. For instance, just because we use the visualisation (or mental picture or analogy) of a Cartesian plane coordinate system for complex numbers doesn't mean we mistake complex numbers for mere two-dimensional coordinates. We are well aware of the fact that there are operations that can be made on complex numbers that have no analogue in coordinate geometry.

    Just because something is outside our normal range of experience does not mean it is unintelligible.

    ---
    * In my case, it was a very similar consideration, but based on Special Relativity (where time is a fourth dimensional axis) that led to my conception of God as a being "outside" time.
  12. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    30 Mar '06 02:21
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    (Sorry - having to do a lot of brief responses today)

    [b]And I argue that the projection (map) is all that is effable. And since the only complete map is the territory (in terms of detail as well as wholeness), all maps are provisional and subject to error.


    I should have clarified. A 'projection' of God (in this case) would be ...[text shortened]... urth dimensional axis) that led to my conception of God as a being "outside" time.[/b]
    Let me think about this for a bit. I had the notion that you could come up with something from mathematics. I am also surprised that no one has yet challenged me from the point of view of quantum mechanics (e.g., quantum non-locality).

    Whe you get a chance, I'm still asking about "bi-directional" temporality.

    Also, at some point, I think you're going to have to flesh your theory out fully.... 🙂
  13. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    30 Mar '06 09:10
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Whe you get a chance, I'm still asking about "bi-directional" temporality.
    Still not sure what you're asking here. You seem to be saying there is no such thing as free will (I don't consider "deterministic free will" to be 'free' in any meaningful sense).
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree