The Number 1

Originally posted by telerion
Can you explain "beyond space" and "outside time" without the use of an analogy? Just because one can be outside or beyond his computer does not mean that he can be outside time or beyond space.

Can you explain "beyond space" and "outside time" without the use of an analogy?
"Beyond space" and "outside time" are pretty straight forward. All action and thought of which we are aware occur in the space-time surrounding us. Inexplicably, this space-time is held together and has been since inception. "Inexplicably" because no one can explain why or how this occurs: from the smallest of scales to the largest, disorder should hold sway, yet instead we see order. While it is possible that man may yet discover the glue, to date he has not. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that something outside of this space-time is responsible for holding the same together.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The claim that some thing is both outside time and causally active in time entails contradiction: that the thing is both changeless and not changeless. Concepts that are logically impossible are not instantiated in the real world, Freaky.

Your computer example bears no relevance to this discussion.

The claim that some thing is both outside time and causally active in time entails contradiction: that the thing is both changeless and not changeless.
Acting in time is not ipso facto either changeless or not changeless. A changeless agent is not rendered a changed agent by virtue of any act in time. Action or inaction in time is not a pre-requisite to a changeless nature. When the Bible speaks of God's changeless nature, it speaks of His consistency in being, in acting. Said acting does not render Him changed, i.e., different after than what He 'was' before the act.

"Beyond space" and "outside time" are pretty straight forward.

I'm not trying to be flippant, but it really isn't straight forward to me at all. IMO it's like saying, "north of the North Pole." I know what "north" is. I know what the "North Pole" is, but I don't know what north of the North Pole is. Take "beyond space." I know what "beyond" is. I know what a "space" is. I even know what it means to be beyond particular spaces (specifically those that are subspaces of the universe); but beyond all space (more than even the universe, but the very concept of a space) makes no sense to me at all. It may be that I lack imagination, or it may be that I have a decent understanding of space. Either way, ithe concept as yet has no meaning to me.
As for "outside of time," that can only have meaning to me for something that never changes in any way. Not just in its attributes* but in his actions as well. To even possibly be outside of time, he would have to take no action at all. Once he acts, there are at least two distinct positions for God, one static and one dynamic, where the dynamic one follows the static one.

Inexplicably, this space-time is held together and has been since inception. "Inexplicably" because no one can explain why or how this occurs: from the smallest of scales to the largest, disorder should hold sway, yet instead we see order. While it is possible that man may yet discover the glue, to date he has not.

I'm not sure that this is true. It may be as it wouldn't take much to surpass my knowledge of modern cosmology. Nevertheless for the moment, I'll assume that this is accurate.

Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that something outside of this space-time is responsible for holding the same together.

Stop right there! I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that something outside of time is responsible for explaining why we do not find ubiquitous disorder. If "outside of space-time" has no meaning, then it would not be reasonable to assume any such thing (whatever name you give it) is responsible.

I don't think any of this though actually explains what it is to be "beyond space" or "outside time." So far, I think you've only argued why we might wish to assume something with those modifiers exists, but you haven't really told me what they mean.


* - God is repeatedly said not to change, but always in a way that describes his character, desires, or laws.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The claim that some thing is both outside time and causally active in time entails contradiction: that the thing is both changeless and not changeless.
Acting in time is not ipso facto either changeless or not changeless. A changeless agent is not rendered a changed agent by virtue of any act in time. Action or inaction in time is not a pr ...[text shortened]... acting does not render Him changed, i.e., different after than what He 'was' before the act.[/b]

If I don't respond to this, then you will likely just direct me to it in your response. As I wrote in my post, acting creates at least two distinct positions for God, one dynamic and the other static. It is through these positions that God can be said to change. I know that the Bible tells us that God's nature, attributes, and laws are unchanging (I'll ignore for now all the times in the Bible where God's mood changes). Nevertheless the position that characterizes him does change. And that places him in time since one position follows the other.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The claim that some thing is both outside time and causally active in time entails contradiction: that the thing is both changeless and not changeless.
Acting in time is not ipso facto either changeless or not changeless. A changeless agent is not rendered a changed agent by virtue of any act in time. Action or inaction in time is not a pr ...[text shortened]... acting does not render Him changed, i.e., different after than what He 'was' before the act.[/b]

I disagree entirely, and we're also apparently using 'changeless' in different ways. This is a really good topic, but I'm strapped for time. Hopefully it's alright with you that I return to this forum, this thread in particular, later this week when I have more time.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I disagree entirely, and we're also apparently using 'changeless' in different ways. This is a really good topic, but I'm strapped for time. Hopefully it's alright with you that I return to this forum, this thread in particular, later this week when I have more time.

Fair enough. I find myself on the short end of the watch, as well. We (you, me and telerion and anyone else inclined) can take it up in a few.

EDIT: Can't believe I spelt tel's name wrong!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Fair enough. I find myself on the short end of the watch, as well. We (you, me and telerion and anyone else inclined) can take it up in a few.

EDIT: Can't believe I spelt tel's name wrong!

While it is possible that man may yet discover the glue, to date he has not. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that something outside of this space-time is responsible for holding the same together.

I’ll throw in my lot with telerion here.

Whether or not we ever discover the “glue,” that is no reason to leap to metaphysical speculations that make no sense. [I note, however, your use of the phrase “this space-time” here.] Even if the nature of such glue transcends our cognitive abilities, that does not mean that it cannot reasonably be a feature of the universe.

You can call the source of this coherence of space-time God or Brahman or the Tao—depending on your philosophical/theological proclivities—if you’re willing to accept the complete immanence of such a theos: a God on the inside, so to speak. You can also employ paradoxical language to illustrate the perceived (and, to my mind, probable) limits of our cognition (ala, say, Pseudo-Dionysius). What you cannot do is express concepts that go beyond the limits of our cognition while claiming they make some kind of descriptive sense.

Pseudo-concepts like “outside of space” or “before time” make no sense. The fact that you have to resort to analogies within space-time dimensionality shows that: our cognition cannot reach beyond those limits.

Originally posted by vistesd
While it is possible that man may yet discover the glue, to date he has not. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that something outside of this space-time is responsible for holding the same together.

I’ll throw in my lot with telerion here.

Whether or not we ever discover the “glue,” that is no reason to leap to metaphysical speculations that ...[text shortened]... es within space-time dimensionality shows that: our cognition cannot reach beyond those limits.[/b]

...that is no reason to leap to metaphysical speculations that make no sense.
Granted, jumping to any ol' random conclusion based on mere speculation is unwarranted. However, accepting a very clean (uncluttered) and non-contradictory explanation in the long-standing absence of any other plausible explanation is warranted... almost demanded, really.

What you cannot do is express concepts that go beyond the limits of our cognition while claiming they make some kind of descriptive sense.
Cognitive limitation does not necessitate inscrutability.

Pseudo-concepts like “outside of space” or “before time” make no sense.
Pseudo!?! How very un-Big Bang-ish of you.

The fact that you have to resort to analogies within space-time dimensionality shows that: our cognition cannot reach beyond those limits.
Like I could use something outside of space-time? We're seemingly stretching beyond all capacity just to get to the first square of that joint, and I have to use an analogy from its borderless borders? What a tough crowd!

Originally posted by telerion
"Beyond space" and "outside time" are pretty straight forward.

I'm not trying to be flippant, but it really isn't straight forward to me at all. IMO it's like saying, "north of the North Pole." I know what "north" is. I know what the "North Pole" is, but I don't know what north of the North Pole is. Take "beyond space." I know what "beyond" is. ys in a way that describes his character, desires, or laws.[/b]

It may be that I lack imagination, or it may be that I have a decent understanding of space. Either way, ithe concept as yet has no meaning to me.
Without resorting to analogies from within space-time, I suppose one will have to be content with "another dimension."

Not just in its attributes* but in his actions as well. To even possibly be outside of time, he would have to take no action at all.
Perhaps I am just completely far too liberal with the concepts in question, as I fail to see the distinction. Any one action of mine cannot in any way shape or form change who I am (my thinking)--- unless, of course, such action is antithetical to my opinion of myself. If I do something opposed to my self-image--- surprise myself, as it were--- my thinking about myself would necessarily have to change (i.e., if I want my thinking to remain in contact with anything resembling the reality wrought by my actions).

God is not so limited with respect to self-knowledge. His actions line up completely and perfectly with His thoughts, those thoughts themselves, perfectly in line with reality. No action of His (or any other action, for that matter) surprises Him. Action in time consistent with His character does not change His character, either in proof or negation. While man may deduce with varying degrees of accuracy what God's actions in time mean, such actions do not demand change: He is not made better or worse by His actions, themselves the necessary product of His character.

If "outside of space-time" has no meaning, then it would not be reasonable to assume any such thing (whatever name you give it) is responsible.
That's a mighty big 'if.' Outside of space-time has an assumed meaning, given the most likely working (emphatically declared) hypothesis we have on how this all came to be: in beginning, God...

Originally posted by EinsteinMind
Can any man tell me what the number one is...?


(Wait for it, this will lead to something...big...)

I can tell you
It's the neutral element for multiplication operations and unity operator for sum operations. You define sum and multiplication with these abstract elements. Zero is the neutral for sums.
Also a very good Metallica song.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For someone as smart as you, LJ, such a concept should hardly represent an obstacle to understanding. For instance, you are beyond your computer and yet you are able to manipulate the same in such a manner as to influence (act) within the confines of Al Gore's amazing invention, the internet.

Al Gore invented the Internet? Blow me. Did he also invent global warming? And what about the motor car?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]...that is no reason to leap to metaphysical speculations that make no sense.
Granted, jumping to any ol' random conclusion based on mere speculation is unwarranted. However, accepting a very clean (uncluttered) and non-contradictory explanation in the long-standing absence of any other plausible explanation is warranted... almost demanded, of that joint, and I have to use an analogy from its borderless borders? What a tough crowd![/b]

Granted, jumping to any ol' random conclusion based on mere speculation is unwarranted. However, accepting a very clean (uncluttered) and non-contradictory explanation in the long-standing absence of any other plausible explanation is warranted... almost demanded, really.

I have come to the conclusion that assuming a supernatural category in the absence of such explanations is unwarranted, epistemologically. (Though not aesthetically.) I think the same about some similar metaphysical leaps, whether religious in nature or not.

Cognitive limitation does not necessitate inscrutability.

I find this statement inscrutable.

Pseudo!?! How very un-Big Bang-ish of you.

I might accept a “Gotcha” here, based on my cosmological ignorance. However, I do believe (from listening to our scientist friends) that there is a singularity beyond which we cannot get.

“Outside of space” is a nonsensical phrase. So is “before time.” “Outside” and “before” are both dimensional concepts; one assumes space-time dimensionality in using them, or they are meaningless.

I suspect—and I’ve been guilty of this too—that we bewitch ourselves with our language, saying things that sound meaningful but at bottom are not. I think this is especially true for what you have called “language of accomodation.” (Again, my own mea culpas here.) Whether one admits the supernatural category, or simply that there are elements of the natural order that transcend our cognitive abilities, I think that we need to treat such language as elicitive (to steal bbarr’s word), rather than descriptive or explanatory.



Like I could use something outside of space-time? We're seemingly stretching beyond all capacity just to get to the first square of that joint, and I have to use an analogy from its borderless borders? What a tough crowd!

I think we’re stretching beyond capacity. But—leaving the supernatural aside—I have acknowledged before what I call the “analogy problem” with regard to speaking of the totality, the whole, the all-of-all-of-all-of-it. The totality has no proper analogy. As a non-dualist, that becomes my problem.

BTW, it’s nice to go at it with you again. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Granted, jumping to any ol' random conclusion based on mere speculation is unwarranted. However, accepting a very clean (uncluttered) and non-contradictory explanation in the long-standing absence of any other plausible explanation is warranted... almost demanded, really.

I have come to the conclusion that assuming a supernatural category in the absen ...[text shortened]... non-dualist, that becomes my problem.

BTW, it’s nice to go at it with you again. 🙂[/b]

I have come to the conclusion that assuming a supernatural category in the absence of such explanations is unwarranted, epistemologically.
Rejecting an explanation purely on the basis of being supernatural, I concede. That notwithstanding, a supernatural explanation is not necessarily irrational. More to your point, however, given that all of what we know depends so emphatically on faith, the epistemological-thingy might not be the one best true source of knowledge. A helpful component, perhaps... but certainly not the end-all, be-all.

I think the same about some similar metaphysical leaps, whether religious in nature or not.
You'll forgive me for taking exception to the inferrence that a supernatural explanation requires a religious underpinning.

I find this statement inscrutable.
Statement? I made a statement? At least that part was clear.

However, I do believe (from listening to our scientist friends) that there is a singularity beyond which we cannot get.
From listening to some of our scientist friends, I believe there is a singularity desired to be beyond reach. I haven't seen a compelling case from among any here or those outside in the wide world of Gore which has adequately negated the beginning of time.

... one assumes space-time dimensionality in using them, or they are meaningless.
One can only assume what one is familiar with. We can approximate or assign analogy to some unknown aspect of a known thing only by using other knowns. For instance, the Lord Jesus Christ often used known physical realities (e.g., wage compensation) to help express unknown aspects (ownership, risk) of a known thing (the kingdom of heaven).

Were His analogies unwarranted or non-sense? Hardly. Instead, they were illuminating even if limited in total application.

At the risk of losing the analogy-phobes, another way to consider 'beyond space-time' is to consider dreams. A non-physical but legal entity, the mind, conjures up images and concepts in a sleep-trance which influences the physical world (via bodily reactions). Is it (the mind) real? Are they (the dreams) real? Are either of them part of this space-time, or are they beyond our reach?

BTW, it’s nice to go at it with you again. 🙂
As ever, as always. Bakatcha.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I have come to the conclusion that assuming a supernatural category in the absence of such explanations is unwarranted, epistemologically.
Rejecting an explanation purely on the basis of being supernatural, I concede. That notwithstanding, a supernatural explanation is not necessarily irrational. More to your point, however, given that all of wha ...[text shortened]... ch?

BTW, it’s nice to go at it with you again. 🙂
As ever, as always. Bakatcha.[/b]

I’m really wiped tonight, so I’ll just make a few comments—between friends. 🙂

You'll forgive me for taking exception to the inferrence that a supernatural explanation requires a religious underpinning.

Ah, actually that is the inference I was trying to remove... I was probably too inscrutable...

Statement? I made a statement? At least that part was clear.

😉

For the rest—

As ever, as always. Bakatcha.

Ever since we went through our one little rough spot, back when, you and I have understood each other too well, I think. Our “arguments” now are a little like two ole guys hittin’ badminton birdies back at each other. “I think I’ll whack it over there, and I know he’ll toss it back here...”

Am laughing with affectionate good humor as I say that...

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m really wiped tonight, so I’ll just make a few comments—between friends. 🙂

You'll forgive me for taking exception to the inferrence that a supernatural explanation requires a religious underpinning.

Ah, actually that is the inference I was trying to remove... I was probably too inscrutable...

Statement? I made a statement? At least that ...[text shortened]... I know he’ll toss it back here...”

Am laughing with affectionate good humor as I say that...

“I think I’ll whack it over there, and I know he’ll toss it back here...”
Too true, too true. It's almost as if we both know the words to the other's favorite song.

Another thought occured while de-analogizing my efforts. The very thing you touched on, 'the oneness of the all,' as it were, the singularity that tel and LJ cannot reach beyond: in many ways the concept is conferred with many aspects of God's.

It should be relatively easy to think of something beyond the room as well an eternity both before and after time. As has been stated, the difficulty in contemplating the unknown beyond the known could more readily be ascribed to God... His attributes being the unknown (timeless, ageless, boundary-less) beyond the known (time, age, boundary). Just a thumbnail thought.