I agree with you what an awesome insight , as an aging aching ex Atheist that is very much how God changed my belief system _ and my life , I soaked up as much science as I possibly could but it did - does not have all the answers and it never will : life is finally starting to make sense unlike my cynical past when evolution and nihilism were the dominant explanations
SeanMauer What's up with the flag for slavery in your background? Closer to the truth is a religious production. Religion has always been fundamentally anti science.
Religion promotes believing in things for no or very bad evidence. It offers theories of how the world works, creation myths, rationalizing suffering, free will, and if you don't believe you will be tortured. A religious person adds to science by ignoring those parts of their religion that interfere with rational thought. I suppose that I'm mostly thinking of western religions here but any practice that offers explanations that aren't based on empirical evidence and have to be accepted on "faith" (without adequate evidence) is training people to be anti-scientific. Certainly some religious groups are worse than others, you're probably aware of the strong anti-evolution sentiments in many sects. I'm glad that many scientists trust empirical results more than the dogma of whatever religion they happen to be associated with. I suppose you know that this isn't just my isolated opinion about this. It's a long point of contention that waxes and wanes but persists. Science advances and religion retreats and religion often fights back. Religion is fundamentally anti-science but the situation is very complicated and as you say lots of scientists have been and are still religious. It wouldn't be talked about though if there wasn't a conflict.
I think that your why-what distinction is problematic. Lots of time people ask why something happened and they definitely want a causal explanation - "Why did the bridge fall." "Because of poor weld joints" would be an acceptable answer. Sometime people want an emotive answer "Why did you do that?" And "I was angry." would be acceptable. It doesn't give any causal relationship between the situation and the behavior, just an emotive description that is often wanted with "Why" questions. Moral reasons are a third category "Why do good people suffer?" wants some moral explanation for unfairness. I know a "why-what" notion has been circulating but it isn't specific enough to describe the difference between scientific and religious ways of dealing with the world. Religions have traditionally postulated a great many causal, empirically testable, explanations for a huge range of phenomena. They oppose science when their claims are brought into question against evidence. Both science and religion (in part) draw motivation from what must be an instinctive need to find patterns in experience. The survival value of such a trait is enormous. The trouble is religion just makes up answers and builds a power base by supplying artificial answers to the public. There almost has to be conflict when scientific methods find empirical answers to many of those questions. The religion's power base is being undermined. Who will keep giving money to an institution that has to keep admitting that it's most cherished beliefs are just wrong?
What he said about creation being a self-limiting thing for God reminded me of a quote from C.S. Lewis's "That Hideous Strength": To those high creature whose activity builds what we call Nature, nothing is "natural". From their station the essential arbitrariness (so to call it) of every actual creation is ceaselessly visible; for them there are no basic assumptions: all springs with the willful beauty of a jest or a tune from that miraculous moment of self-limitation wherein the Infinite, rejecting a myriad possibilities, throws out from Himself the positive and elected invention.-- To be honest, I believe in what he called the "Block Universe", where God can view everything in His Unbounded Eternal Now. Not to disrespect those who do not take this view; I simply don't share it.
Snap, me too! This is something i have considered my whole life. I went to theological college late in life after a long career as a senior army officer. I was in college as an ordinand with a doctor of mathmatics and a professor oxford don of geology. To say my time there was exciting and inspiring would be a gross understatement.... Revd Polkinghorne is an amazing man, eloquent, intelligent and faithful and a great inspiration to me amongst many!
It's funny where my view on this issue would then come in. I believe in a tensed theory of time, but hold that because God is all knowing he contains a never withering experience of both past and future events that aren't contingent upon an experienced metaphysical reality. I'm almost forced into this view if I hope to keep God outside of time because if God had to think things about, it seems to me that this would bring about a causal chain that time would have to touch. Instead, I hold that God just simply knows and experiences everything (St. Thomas Aquinas' First Way).
To me: Pure energy is "space" and the flow of pure energy is "time". Time (the flow of energy) cannot exist without space (energy) existing. Space (energy) without time (the flow of energy) is useless. If space (energy) existed but did not flow, wouldn't we say that "time stood still"? Time itself would still exist as long as space existed, it just wouldn't flow. Time is dependent upon space existing in the first place. Hence, space and time are linked as "spacetime". For those who might say that pure energy does not exist: Modern science recognizes the big bang occurring and the laws of nature and matter coming from that big bang. If it wasn't pure energy that banged, (since the current laws of nature and matter didn't exist yet), then what banged? Modern science recognizes the quantum as a bundle of energy. I propose the following: The quantum, (bundle of energy), could be seen as a "bundle of sticks". when the sticks are one way, their interaction with themselves and with other pure energy units causes certain laws of nature to occur. When the sticks get rearranged by some means, the new interactions cause different laws of nature to occur. It was a rearrangement of the "sticks" in the quantum which triggered the big bang with a corresponding release of energy.
Hi, you refer that Time is some sort of energy flow and because of that matter flow. But how Would timetravel fit into this. You May agree that we move into future but there are many proofs for Travel into the past too. So if Time is Energy flow, what would Happen when you Travel back in Time?
+Nathan Dice It would seem to me that all the energy in the universe would have to flow backwards at basically the same relative rate that it flowed forward, good luck with that. And this doesn't even take into account that modern science says that "time" varies. To go back into an exact time frame reference, to me it would seem one would have to take into account all the time variances that ever occurred up to that point in backwards time one were going to. Again, good luck with that.
I believe time as we experience it is integral to our universe while God is outside of our reality. God knows past, present and future while we are consigned to plod alone the arrow of time at the pace He has set.
Time is not an illusion. That meme is getting sort of tired. TIme is actually the name we give to movement and speed or acceleration. There is a distance between A & B, whatever it is. We can measure the distance, say 1 kilometer. The kilometer is a quantity, but it is not a thing. Points A and B are things, say each is a tree. The trees are not moving, except swaying in the wind, but their roots are fixed. If you move from A to B time will elapse. We mark that time relative to something else that is moving, such as as Earth spinning to face the sun every 24 hrs. We create subdivisions of the Earth's movement relative to the sun (like with a sundial) and we create subdivisions of distance. Using one moving thing as a reference, the Earth, we then describe our speed moving from A to B relative to the it's movement. Even if you sat still under tree A you would say time passes. Yes, because you are moving, really fast in fact, since the Earth is moving. Seconds, picoseconds, femtoseconds....all subdivisions of the Earth rotating to face the sun every 24 hrs. Time, as we call it, would only cease to be if movement ceased to be.
+rh001YT Yes to he last sentence, however, more and more evidence is being discovered through quantum physics that time is emergent as is space, (space time) and that the whole of the 3D physical experience is actually a sub-function of conciousness and hence an illusion.
MrRamraider That a number should relate cause and effect is indeed representative of an intelligent designer that pervades all time and space, and all processes.
MrRamraider Hi! I consider "emergent" as a fashion word of several intellectual communities to cover up the real word, or phrase, which is "I have no idea how that happens". "Illusion" is a similar fashion word used by the aforementioned communities. We all know the real meaning of illusion....like the illusion of an oasis in the desert. An illusion looks, hears, etc., physically real, but goes away upon closer inspection and then all is expected as it should be from what we know as the laws of nature. So the desert oasis vanishes when we reach it and is just real, touchable sand, and further research tells us how heat waves had, from a distance, gave the appearance of shimmering water. The key idea is that something real dispels the illusion. Something tangible, or sensible and knowledge of natural laws (even the common person's knowledge) is the ground that dispels the illusion. It gets rather solipsistic to take away the ground we use to establish real or illusion. In the very end things like pain or market price determine realness. Pain is the best determinant for reality. Market price can take some time to bring about reality. Fashion items can have a high market price when they are in fashion - a time of illusion or delusion - but when the fashion fades market price bursts the illusion of value and then real value is known. Time is very tricky as I noted....distance and movement seem more real. Over the years I have concluded that the human mind is not actually set up to know or understand everything in which we are immersed. That does not make for an illusion because my conjecture is that the human mind can never find another ground from which to declare oddities like time to be an illusion. I would say human minds may have a blind spot, but as such it can never be known that we have it, because to know we have it we would have to not have it.
+rh001YT rh001YT "Emergent" has a very specific meaning, "that which comes into being", ephemeral rather than immortal. Illusion is something that takes place in consciousness and not the 3D realm. These have always been the definitions and are not subject to fashion. You cannot know for sure that you are not just an avatar experiencing 3D reality, there is increasing scientific evidence that this is in fact the case. Ref: double slit experiment and quantum entanglement.
MrRamraider Hmmm....me thinks ye may be smoking something herbal. I disagree on your definition of "illusion". Illusion is the mistake one might make interpreting the 3D data. The illusion goes away on more careful inspection of the data. Illusion is a mistake and we correct it by reference to reality. "Delusion" is entirely in the mind. Illusion is a mistake, but delusion is more like a psycho-emotional mistake. The diff being that normal people will seek to find out if what they perceive is illusion or reality, but the deluded cling to the delusion and make no effort to check against reality. However in the case of deluded, pain is often what brings them back to reality. Ummm, generally speaking, it's considered a bit daft to say "you can't prove such and such is the case" when such and such can't be proven. So we have at hand what we can prove, and new claims are expected to be tested against what is known, not just evidence but rules like the Laws of Nature, to whatever extent we know them at the time. Semantics must also be used carefully. While on the one hand one can say that "avatar experiencing 3D reality" is a synonym for "human being". But what would be the point? And anyway, all the words of that synonym would have to be defined, and how could that be done without reference to our known reality? I don't think you give serious consideration to the problem of a blind spot, if we have one. Consider for a moment that we do. The result would be that explanations for some observations would baffle and elude us. But not knowing for sure if we have a blind spot, and there be nothing to be done about it if we do, then the end result is plugging along and trying to explain mysterious phenomenon, but only managing to give mumbo jumbo explanations that don't lead to practical results. We would carry on the best we can, learning what we can about reality, but always missing a few puzzle pieces, but only a few. In fact, double-slit experiment may be a tip off that we do have a blind spot(s). It is only mysterious because we can't "see" what is happening.
Could the mathematics of quantum mechanics represent the physics of 'time' as a physical process? This theory is based on just two simple postulates. The first is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ explained by Schrödinger's wave equation represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π or Arrow of Time itself photon by photon. The second is that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual! The process explained by quantum mechanics represents the flow of time itself! The absorption and emission of light forms what we see and feel as the flow of time. A continuous exchange of energy a process of continuous change forms the time continuum. This theory is just an extension of Einstein's relativity extended to everyday objects and observers. In this theory we have just 3 dimensions and 1 variable of time within an infinite number of reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence. A common sense quantum theory.
Will Physicists ever be able to isolate a second of time and prove that time exists ? Can there be " time " outside of human consciousness _ or is it a constuct of our human conscious state ?.I agree with Einstein that time can - is different for all of us in particular when motion is a variable...I don't think God exists in or " needs " time ..
He's on the right track but he is making the same mistake Einstein did. He conflates the concept of time with the concept of time passing. These are in fact, 2 different concepts which are only arbitrarily related. Think of motion and speed. Motion is something that things do. Speed is an emergent property of consciousness. It's motion, as perceived by an individual observer. Time is something that things do, which is why gravity can affect it. The passing of time is determined by the rate at which we time. Just a thought.
Everything is relative all they way upstream to source, if you’re a human reality is as real as it gets, change perspective and you will have another reality that is as real as it can get, we can experience a tiny slice of this comparing quantum physics and our macro level, the only truly objective point of view is from source itself.
Doesn't the very fact that we become old and die hold up that time must exist otherwise how would we of even been born also the second law of thermo is evidence that time exists.
Why are several of these interviews done in churches? Personally, I don't mind as I'm quite fond of churches. However, it is a peculiar place to hold these interviews
god knows everything, past present and future. God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent......according to the Holy Bible. You need more than theology, my dear friend to understand God....you need to be born again....you need the Holy Ghost.....not dead religion. Wake up.! NOW! Time waits for no man. And stop quoting Einstein.....rather quote Stephen Crothers.
Physics does not give an absolute explanation for time, space, mass, force etc. Mathematics explains how cause and effect are related by the complex number i.
Time, space, mass and force, all of them are relations, they are relative to each other and those relations allow us to define them so that they make sense. Imaginary numbers are only helping tools in mathematics
finally a discussion about god in the science which he made...... what?? if he didnt who did then.... well im waiting .... anyone?? any theoritcal scientist ? any physics person?? any equations you can bring that dont break down at the deeper level of creation....?? ... ah ok. no. bye
Interesting? To define anything is to establish boundaries. Therefore, for whatever the act of creation defines, creation also established boundaries. So in creation, God limits his/her self to allow that created thing to persist within existence. Or at least, this seems to fit our way of thinking. And with or without God, our thinking employs definitions that limit us. And if language for its dependence upon definitions is more limiting than our thinking, then culture/society is even more limited.
Why does anybody need to know anything if it's all in the hands of God, just accept life the way it is then and don't bother to find out anything about anything. You don't need to know.
God doesn't know the future? Unfortunately, this highly intelligent and well educated man does not know the Bible. God revealed dreams (future events before they DID happen) on several occasions. He revealed kings' names before they were born, revealed chunks of history (which can now be authenticated with the passing of time) in Daniel and in other Bible books. Knowledge, wisdom and intelligence should go hand in hand, but sometimes, they just don't.
Maxie Goulet Thank you for admitting that this is a man that is "highly intelligent and well educated".....but then to say that he doesn't know the bible is to actually admit that he doesn't view or interpret the bible as you do.....as if it is your way or the wrong way...that you hold the key to interpreting the bible.Fundamentalists do this all the time (and no, I don't know if you are a fundamentalist or not...so I didn't just call you a fundamentalist). Who is your favorite theologian or biblical scholar, what do you read besides the bible?
Yes, and I also like to read and watch on youtube, John Haught. Also, John Dominic Crossan. My favorite biblical scholar is Bart Ehrman. Recently finished reading, Lost Christianities. Deals with the books that didn't make it into the cannon.
Maxie Goulet he's not proposing that God is ignorant, but that reality itself has limits, so God's knowkedge about it confirms to the nature of what is real, when he self limits knowledge, he's not making something real unknown, but maybe something that is hypothetically knowable unknowable by the nature of it not being real. at some point saying "God is stringer than infinity times a thousand!" type talk isn't good theology, and when applied to reality it's not good physics, it's proud chearleading. theology says God knows the future, but how much of the future is known and knowable? Why is prophesy so vague if every iota of history is fixed? maybe it's not saying what you think it's saying.
Assuming even "God" exists and created the universe and all in it and is possibly everywhere and in everything for it to even exist, "IF" "God" is not truly eternally consciously existent and consciously ceases to exist one day, then does it even matter that "God" even ever existed in the first place as far as eternity is concerned? How could "God", and all that "God" may have done and/or not done, ultimately and eternally matter if there isn't a conscious entity left for it to eternally matter to? "IF" "God" exists and is truly eternally consciously existent, then one of the very things "God" could never ever do would be to personally experience a total cessation of conscious existence. And yet, that just happens to be the one very thing we as humans, as well as many other species, cannot apparently ever escape. Coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe "God" experiences a cessation of consciousness through entities that consciously exist and then cease to consciously exist. It's possibly the only way how "God" could ever experience "death" is by how it is apparently being done. Create entities that consciously exist and then cease to consciously exist. At least one purpose of our existence, to cease to consciously exist? Should be pretty easy to do since that is the one very thing we cannot apparently ever escape. "IF" true, and I acknowledge that is a very big "if", can that "God" connection be identified and tapped into while we are yet consciously alive? What then of our existence? "IF" not true, well then, it appears all of our existences will cease to exist one day. Our true destiny would most probably be to cease to exist and be forgotten as far as eternity is concerned. Of course, even if "God" is truly eternally consciously existent, but we aren't, then all of our existence is still just an illusion from the human perspective as far as eternity is concerned. Our true destiny would most probably still be the same, to cease to exist and be forgotten, even by "God" into "God's" eternity, (eternity being a really, really long time).
I think that JP is making two errors here, which typify religious thinking. (A) he likes to think that here are some things that will forever remain a mystery and which can therefore be attributed to his God. (B) he starts off with an item of religious dogma (his God exists) and then performs contortions trying to make the scientific evidence and theory fit his pre-existing belief.
He has so much doubts about quantum gravity because it is so speculative and so on, and that's true, but at the same time he seems to be convinced and has so much to say about the nature, the properties and behaviour of God. Just listen to him again, and replace in your head the word "God" every time he says it with "Chuck" (Norris).
claudiaquat a right turn vs a left turn, to tell the truth or tell a lie, to create one kind of universe but not another, these are all actions that self limit... none of them equate suicide. a hypothetical immortal who acts self limits by acting in one way but not another. this does not logically result in self destruction, quite the contrary, the lack of self limitation is the lack of self definition. to be smart is to not be stupid on the sane scale, to exist in such a way excludes not existing in such a way. a deity that doesn't self limit is just infinite static, noise, contradiction and both simultaneously everything and nothing.
I didn't say the actions were equivalent. I said the capacity to do one implied the capacity to do the other. I'm not interested in commenting on the rest of what ever you said.
It seems truly silly to analyze the complex rationale and nature of a divine being who (which) is almost certainly no more than a creation of man's own feverishly overactive imagination.
"God will bring about determined ends by contingent paths." Brilliant. Perfect description of open theism.
I agree with you what an awesome insight , as an aging aching ex Atheist that is very much how God changed my belief system _ and my life , I soaked up as much science as I possibly could but it did - does not have all the answers and it never will : life is finally starting to make sense unlike my cynical past when evolution and nihilism were the dominant explanations
@@robchristopher8244 FFS, never heard of anybody leaving atheism before. It's still remarkable to find otherwise intelligent people who are religious.
Since gods and time are conceptual entities they
can be objects of belief but never of knowledge.
Why all the thumbs down? What's wrong with exploring ideas?
Bigotry maybe?
Snake Plissken
Any one who differs from you is a bigot?
SeanMauer What's up with the flag for slavery in your background? Closer to the truth is a religious production. Religion has always been fundamentally anti science.
Religion promotes believing in things for no or very bad evidence. It offers theories of how the world works, creation myths, rationalizing suffering, free will, and if you don't believe you will be tortured. A religious person adds to science by ignoring those parts of their religion that interfere with rational thought. I suppose that I'm mostly thinking of western religions here but any practice that offers explanations that aren't based on empirical evidence and have to be accepted on "faith" (without adequate evidence) is training people to be anti-scientific. Certainly some religious groups are worse than others, you're probably aware of the strong anti-evolution sentiments in many sects. I'm glad that many scientists trust empirical results more than the dogma of whatever religion they happen to be associated with. I suppose you know that this isn't just my isolated opinion about this. It's a long point of contention that waxes and wanes but persists. Science advances and religion retreats and religion often fights back. Religion is fundamentally anti-science but the situation is very complicated and as you say lots of scientists have been and are still religious. It wouldn't be talked about though if there wasn't a conflict.
I think that your why-what distinction is problematic. Lots of time people ask why something happened and they definitely want a causal explanation - "Why did the bridge fall." "Because of poor weld joints" would be an acceptable answer. Sometime people want an emotive answer "Why did you do that?" And "I was angry." would be acceptable. It doesn't give any causal relationship between the situation and the behavior, just an emotive description that is often wanted with "Why" questions. Moral reasons are a third category "Why do good people suffer?" wants some moral explanation for unfairness.
I know a "why-what" notion has been circulating but it isn't specific enough to describe the difference between scientific and religious ways of dealing with the world. Religions have traditionally postulated a great many causal, empirically testable, explanations for a huge range of phenomena. They oppose science when their claims are brought into question against evidence. Both science and religion (in part) draw motivation from what must be an instinctive need to find patterns in experience. The survival value of such a trait is enormous. The trouble is religion just makes up answers and builds a power base by supplying artificial answers to the public. There almost has to be conflict when scientific methods find empirical answers to many of those questions. The religion's power base is being undermined. Who will keep giving money to an institution that has to keep admitting that it's most cherished beliefs are just wrong?
Unfolding becoming...that makes perfect sense to me.
What he said about creation being a self-limiting thing for God reminded me of a quote from C.S. Lewis's "That Hideous Strength":
To those high creature whose activity builds what we call Nature, nothing is "natural". From their station the essential arbitrariness (so to call it) of every actual creation is ceaselessly visible; for them there are no basic assumptions: all springs with the willful beauty of a jest or a tune from that miraculous moment of self-limitation wherein the Infinite, rejecting a myriad possibilities, throws out from Himself the positive and elected invention.--
To be honest, I believe in what he called the "Block Universe", where God can view everything in His Unbounded Eternal Now. Not to disrespect those who do not take this view; I simply don't share it.
Snap, me too! This is something i have considered my whole life. I went to theological college late in life after a long career as a senior army officer. I was in college as an ordinand with a doctor of mathmatics and a professor oxford don of geology. To say my time there was exciting and inspiring would be a gross understatement.... Revd Polkinghorne is an amazing man, eloquent, intelligent and faithful and a great inspiration to me amongst many!
It's funny where my view on this issue would then come in. I believe in a tensed theory of time, but hold that because God is all knowing he contains a never withering experience of both past and future events that aren't contingent upon an experienced metaphysical reality. I'm almost forced into this view if I hope to keep God outside of time because if God had to think things about, it seems to me that this would bring about a causal chain that time would have to touch. Instead, I hold that God just simply knows and experiences everything (St. Thomas Aquinas' First Way).
Does causation observe / measure time and space? Human mind observes causation, maybe causation and observer go together?
"Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so. " (Douglas Adams) 😀
Not an illusion, a concept.
What do matter and energy emerge from?
To me:
Pure energy is "space" and the flow of pure energy is "time". Time (the flow of energy) cannot exist without space (energy) existing. Space (energy) without time (the flow of energy) is useless. If space (energy) existed but did not flow, wouldn't we say that "time stood still"? Time itself would still exist as long as space existed, it just wouldn't flow. Time is dependent upon space existing in the first place.
Hence, space and time are linked as "spacetime".
For those who might say that pure energy does not exist:
Modern science recognizes the big bang occurring and the laws of nature and matter coming from that big bang. If it wasn't pure energy that banged, (since the current laws of nature and matter didn't exist yet), then what banged?
Modern science recognizes the quantum as a bundle of energy. I propose the following:
The quantum, (bundle of energy), could be seen as a "bundle of sticks". when the sticks are one way, their interaction with themselves and with other pure energy units causes certain laws of nature to occur. When the sticks get rearranged by some means, the new interactions cause different laws of nature to occur. It was a rearrangement of the "sticks" in the quantum which triggered the big bang with a corresponding release of energy.
Hi, you refer that Time is some sort of energy flow and because of that matter flow. But how Would timetravel fit into this. You May agree that we move into future but there are many proofs for Travel into the past too. So if Time is Energy flow, what would Happen when you Travel back in Time?
+Nathan Dice It would seem to me that all the energy in the universe would have to flow backwards at basically the same relative rate that it flowed forward, good luck with that.
And this doesn't even take into account that modern science says that "time" varies. To go back into an exact time frame reference, to me it would seem one would have to take into account all the time variances that ever occurred up to that point in backwards time one were going to. Again, good luck with that.
I believe time as we experience it is integral to our universe while God is outside of our reality. God knows past, present and future while we are consigned to plod alone the arrow of time at the pace He has set.
Can special relativity show that time emerges from causation, as well as space?
Time is not an illusion. That meme is getting sort of tired. TIme is actually the name we give to movement and speed or acceleration. There is a distance between A & B, whatever it is. We can measure the distance, say 1 kilometer. The kilometer is a quantity, but it is not a thing. Points A and B are things, say each is a tree. The trees are not moving, except swaying in the wind, but their roots are fixed. If you move from A to B time will elapse. We mark that time relative to something else that is moving, such as as Earth spinning to face the sun every 24 hrs. We create subdivisions of the Earth's movement relative to the sun (like with a sundial) and we create subdivisions of distance. Using one moving thing as a reference, the Earth, we then describe our speed moving from A to B relative to the it's movement.
Even if you sat still under tree A you would say time passes. Yes, because you are moving, really fast in fact, since the Earth is moving. Seconds, picoseconds, femtoseconds....all subdivisions of the Earth rotating to face the sun every 24 hrs.
Time, as we call it, would only cease to be if movement ceased to be.
+rh001YT Yes to he last sentence, however, more and more evidence is being discovered through quantum physics that time is emergent as is space, (space time) and that the whole of the 3D physical experience is actually a sub-function of conciousness and hence an illusion.
MrRamraider
That a number should relate cause and effect is indeed representative of an intelligent designer that pervades all time and space, and all processes.
MrRamraider Hi! I consider "emergent" as a fashion word of several intellectual communities to cover up the real word, or phrase, which is "I have no idea how that happens".
"Illusion" is a similar fashion word used by the aforementioned communities. We all know the real meaning of illusion....like the illusion of an oasis in the desert. An illusion looks, hears, etc., physically real, but goes away upon closer inspection and then all is expected as it should be from what we know as the laws of nature. So the desert oasis vanishes when we reach it and is just real, touchable sand, and further research tells us how heat waves had, from a distance, gave the appearance of shimmering water.
The key idea is that something real dispels the illusion. Something tangible, or sensible and knowledge of natural laws (even the common person's knowledge) is the ground that dispels the illusion.
It gets rather solipsistic to take away the ground we use to establish real or illusion. In the very end things like pain or market price determine realness. Pain is the best determinant for reality. Market price can take some time to bring about reality. Fashion items can have a high market price when they are in fashion - a time of illusion or delusion - but when the fashion fades market price bursts the illusion of value and then real value is known.
Time is very tricky as I noted....distance and movement seem more real. Over the years I have concluded that the human mind is not actually set up to know or understand everything in which we are immersed. That does not make for an illusion because my conjecture is that the human mind can never find another ground from which to declare oddities like time to be an illusion. I would say human minds may have a blind spot, but as such it can never be known that we have it, because to know we have it we would have to not have it.
+rh001YT rh001YT "Emergent" has a very specific meaning, "that which comes into being", ephemeral rather than immortal. Illusion is something that takes place in consciousness and not the 3D realm. These have always been the definitions and are not subject to fashion. You cannot know for sure that you are not just an avatar experiencing 3D reality, there is increasing scientific evidence that this is in fact the case. Ref: double slit experiment and quantum entanglement.
MrRamraider Hmmm....me thinks ye may be smoking something herbal.
I disagree on your definition of "illusion". Illusion is the mistake one might make interpreting the 3D data. The illusion goes away on more careful inspection of the data. Illusion is a mistake and we correct it by reference to reality. "Delusion" is entirely in the mind. Illusion is a mistake, but delusion is more like a psycho-emotional mistake. The diff being that normal people will seek to find out if what they perceive is illusion or reality, but the deluded cling to the delusion and make no effort to check against reality. However in the case of deluded, pain is often what brings them back to reality.
Ummm, generally speaking, it's considered a bit daft to say "you can't prove such and such is the case" when such and such can't be proven. So we have at hand what we can prove, and new claims are expected to be tested against what is known, not just evidence but rules like the Laws of Nature, to whatever extent we know them at the time.
Semantics must also be used carefully. While on the one hand one can say that "avatar experiencing 3D reality" is a synonym for "human being". But what would be the point? And anyway, all the words of that synonym would have to be defined, and how could that be done without reference to our known reality?
I don't think you give serious consideration to the problem of a blind spot, if we have one. Consider for a moment that we do. The result would be that explanations for some observations would baffle and elude us. But not knowing for sure if we have a blind spot, and there be nothing to be done about it if we do, then the end result is plugging along and trying to explain mysterious phenomenon, but only managing to give mumbo jumbo explanations that don't lead to practical results. We would carry on the best we can, learning what we can about reality, but always missing a few puzzle pieces, but only a few.
In fact, double-slit experiment may be a tip off that we do have a blind spot(s). It is only mysterious because we can't "see" what is happening.
Could the mathematics of quantum mechanics represent the physics of 'time' as a physical process?
This theory is based on just two simple postulates. The first is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ explained by Schrödinger's wave equation represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π or Arrow of Time itself photon by photon. The second is that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual! The process explained by quantum mechanics represents the flow of time itself! The absorption and emission of light forms what we see and feel as the flow of time. A continuous exchange of energy a process of continuous change forms the time continuum. This theory is just an extension of Einstein's relativity extended to everyday objects and observers. In this theory we have just 3 dimensions and 1 variable of time within an infinite number of reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence.
A common sense quantum theory.
Will Physicists ever be able to isolate a second of time and prove that time exists ? Can there be " time " outside of human consciousness _ or is it a constuct of our human conscious state ?.I agree with Einstein that time can - is different for all of us in particular when motion is a variable...I don't think God exists in or " needs " time ..
How to transfer science into fiction to avoid too much dissonance.
Time might exist as entropy does but it isn't universal when we measure it!!
In QM, Time and Causality are even more weird!!
nice
Is he saying that time a bi-product of entropy and perception of such is experiential?
Since gods and time are conceptual entities they
can be objects of belief but never of knowledge.
I don't think the out of focus conceit at the beginning of these videos serves an aesthetic purpose, it's just annoying.
He's on the right track but he is making the same mistake Einstein did. He conflates the concept of time with the concept of time passing. These are in fact, 2 different concepts which are only arbitrarily related. Think of motion and speed. Motion is something that things do. Speed is an emergent property of consciousness. It's motion, as perceived by an individual observer. Time is something that things do, which is why gravity can affect it. The passing of time is determined by the rate at which we time.
Just a thought.
To me time is just the measurement of energy depletion at a gradual rate
lol you just defined time with time. The energy is going down constantly per every unit of time.
Everything is relative all they way upstream to source, if you’re a human reality is as real as it gets, change perspective and you will have another reality that is as real as it can get, we can experience a tiny slice of this comparing quantum physics and our macro level, the only truly objective point of view is from source itself.
Doesn't the very fact that we become old and die hold up that time must exist otherwise how would we of even been born also the second law of thermo is evidence that time exists.
With four different times you can always create an instance of time.
Why are several of these interviews done in churches? Personally, I don't mind as I'm quite fond of churches. However, it is a peculiar place to hold these interviews
Polkinghorne is not only a physicist, he's a vicar, or priest of the Anglican Church. You are probably looking at his church, his place of work...
god knows everything, past present and future. God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent......according to the Holy Bible. You need more than theology, my dear friend to understand God....you need to be born again....you need the Holy Ghost.....not dead religion. Wake up.! NOW! Time waits for no man. And stop quoting Einstein.....rather quote Stephen Crothers.
INTERESANTE YA ESA DICOTOMIA EXISTENCIA PARA SU ENERGIA EN RALACION DIRECTA COSMOLOGICA DADO EL CORTO VECTOR ESPACIO TEMPORAL ANGULAR AXIAL
Physics does not give an absolute explanation for time, space, mass, force etc.
Mathematics explains how cause and effect are related by the complex number i.
Time, space, mass and force, all of them are relations, they are relative to each other and those relations allow us to define them so that they make sense. Imaginary numbers are only helping tools in mathematics
Time is that space btw life and death of everything in our system
finally a discussion about god in the science which he made......
what?? if he didnt who did then.... well im waiting .... anyone?? any theoritcal scientist ? any physics person?? any equations you can bring that dont break down at the deeper level of creation....?? ... ah ok. no.
bye
Interesting? To define anything is to establish boundaries. Therefore, for whatever the act of creation defines, creation also established boundaries. So in creation, God limits his/her self to allow that created thing to persist within existence. Or at least, this seems to fit our way of thinking. And with or without God, our thinking employs definitions that limit us. And if language for its dependence upon definitions is more limiting than our thinking, then culture/society is even more limited.
Interesting :) I just wanted to be the 100th person to comment. Do I win a prize?
Why does anybody need to know anything if it's all in the hands of God, just accept life the way it is then and don't bother to find out anything about anything. You don't need to know.
Anyway, which god?
SALUDOS
Time is Real. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS Julian Barbour!
Khalid Masood
Hahahaha. After 5 years of TIME, your comment is still funny.
God doesn't know the future? Unfortunately, this highly intelligent and well educated man does not know the Bible. God revealed dreams (future events before they DID happen) on several occasions. He revealed kings' names before they were born, revealed chunks of history (which can now be authenticated with the passing of time) in Daniel and in other Bible books. Knowledge, wisdom and intelligence should go hand in hand, but sometimes, they just don't.
Maxie Goulet Thank you for admitting that this is a man that is "highly intelligent and well educated".....but then to say that he doesn't know the bible is to actually admit that he doesn't view or interpret the bible as you do.....as if it is your way or the wrong way...that you hold the key to interpreting the bible.Fundamentalists do this all the time (and no, I don't know if you are a fundamentalist or not...so I didn't just call you a fundamentalist). Who is your favorite theologian or biblical scholar, what do you read besides the bible?
Yes, and I also like to read and watch on youtube, John Haught. Also, John Dominic Crossan. My favorite biblical scholar is Bart Ehrman. Recently finished reading, Lost Christianities. Deals with the books that didn't make it into the cannon.
I believe Polkinghorne was a physicist before becoming a priest.
He was about that the future is not still there as something to be known. The future is non existent as the past
Maxie Goulet he's not proposing that God is ignorant, but that reality itself has limits, so God's knowkedge about it confirms to the nature of what is real, when he self limits knowledge, he's not making something real unknown, but maybe something that is hypothetically knowable unknowable by the nature of it not being real.
at some point saying "God is stringer than infinity times a thousand!" type talk isn't good theology, and when applied to reality it's not good physics, it's proud chearleading.
theology says God knows the future, but how much of the future is known and knowable? Why is prophesy so vague if every iota of history is fixed? maybe it's not saying what you think it's saying.
Time doesn't exist at all.
Steven Novakovich
Comment two years ago = OWNED
So, creation is work of salvation by Himself, Jesus,,,, God knew the Fall
Assuming even "God" exists and created the universe and all in it and is possibly everywhere and in everything for it to even exist, "IF" "God" is not truly eternally consciously existent and consciously ceases to exist one day, then does it even matter that "God" even ever existed in the first place as far as eternity is concerned? How could "God", and all that "God" may have done and/or not done, ultimately and eternally matter if there isn't a conscious entity left for it to eternally matter to?
"IF" "God" exists and is truly eternally consciously existent, then one of the very things "God" could never ever do would be to personally experience a total cessation of conscious existence. And yet, that just happens to be the one very thing we as humans, as well as many other species, cannot apparently ever escape. Coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe "God" experiences a cessation of consciousness through entities that consciously exist and then cease to consciously exist. It's possibly the only way how "God" could ever experience "death" is by how it is apparently being done. Create entities that consciously exist and then cease to consciously exist. At least one purpose of our existence, to cease to consciously exist? Should be pretty easy to do since that is the one very thing we cannot apparently ever escape.
"IF" true, and I acknowledge that is a very big "if", can that "God" connection be identified and tapped into while we are yet consciously alive? What then of our existence?
"IF" not true, well then, it appears all of our existences will cease to exist one day. Our true destiny would most probably be to cease to exist and be forgotten as far as eternity is concerned. Of course, even if "God" is truly eternally consciously existent, but we aren't, then all of our existence is still just an illusion from the human perspective as far as eternity is concerned. Our true destiny would most probably still be the same, to cease to exist and be forgotten, even by "God" into "God's" eternity, (eternity being a really, really long time).
I think that JP is making two errors here, which typify religious thinking. (A) he likes to think that here are some things that will forever remain a mystery and which can therefore be attributed to his God. (B) he starts off with an item of religious dogma (his God exists) and then performs contortions trying to make the scientific evidence and theory fit his pre-existing belief.
God?
He has so much doubts about quantum gravity because it is so speculative and so on, and that's true, but at the same time he seems to be convinced and has so much to say about the nature, the properties and behaviour of God. Just listen to him again, and replace in your head the word "God" every time he says it with "Chuck" (Norris).
"Divine self-limitation"
If god can limit itself, it can kill itself.
This man has no sense of irony.
Are you an "it"?
SeanMauer
Who wants to know?
claudiaquat
claudiaquat a right turn vs a left turn, to tell the truth or tell a lie, to create one kind of universe but not another, these are all actions that self limit... none of them equate suicide.
a hypothetical immortal who acts self limits by acting in one way but not another. this does not logically result in self destruction, quite the contrary, the lack of self limitation is the lack of self definition. to be smart is to not be stupid on the sane scale, to exist in such a way excludes not existing in such a way.
a deity that doesn't self limit is just infinite static, noise, contradiction and both simultaneously everything and nothing.
I didn't say the actions were equivalent. I said the capacity to do one implied the capacity to do the other. I'm not interested in commenting on the rest of what ever you said.
It seems truly silly to analyze the complex rationale and nature of a divine being who (which) is almost certainly no more than a creation of man's own feverishly overactive imagination.
Almost
God?
Lol no thnx
Humanist Philosopher,Prof A.C Grayling has called Polkinghorne a medaeval Thinker
Colin Dowson
A greaaat honour !