Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
34 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (6 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,123 Year: 22,159/19,786 Month: 722/1,834 Week: 222/500 Day: 50/69 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 3 of 687 (520532)
08-21-2009 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
08-21-2009 10:48 PM


Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
If your entire argument is that it hasn't been proven that a god of some sort did not create the Heavens and the Earth you,ll not find any sane challengers. That makes you a winner, Yeah!

The second bit about god blowing noses is a bit more problematic. It has been "proven" to the satisfaction of all but the most perverse that man didn't arise fully formed from dust. Or are you going to resort to this being poetic license. Not a lot of time is spent disproving poems. Violets aren't really blue and no one has made a big deal of that either.

The problem is that you know and we know that you'll take the win to be a whole heck of a lot more significant than the nothing that it is. That it can't — yes, can't — be proven that some sort of god did not in some sort of way create the Universe gives no logical sanction to any of the properties of that god or its ways.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 08-21-2009 10:48 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:34 AM lyx2no has responded
 Message 370 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 5:41 AM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 11 of 687 (520584)
08-22-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by ICANT
08-22-2009 9:34 AM


Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
You can not prove God does not exist.

I think we've all agreed to that about a gazillion times.

You can prove God did not create the heaven and the earth as is stated in Genesis 1:1. All you have to do to prove Genesis 1:1 to be false is to prove how the universe began to exist.

All gen 1:1 say is Goddidit, so no, one can't. If one "proves" some version of the BBT to be exactly correct in every particular how would that prove that God didn't use that version of the BBT to create the Universe?

Now, If Gen 1:1 said "In the beginning God made the Universe out of four different colors of modeling clay and that's why people are indistinguishable from animation figures." then we'd have something to work with.

Nothing has been proven.

Right, ICANT, we're all just brains in jars. Some jars from Costco, some jars from Gerber.

"Proven" is your word, ICANT. The Jars from Costco have agreed that epistemologically nothing is "proven". But TJfCs don't need things to be epistemologically proven for them to recognize the best fit to reality. TJfCs recognize a form of "proven" that means "given enough evidence, fitting the evidence without contradiction." TJfCs understand that evidence, like that produced in the Michelson-Morley experiments, might be uncovered that contradicts what they had thought to be proven. TJfCs then scrap or refine their earlier model to incorporate this information into a new model. That's how The Jars from Costco keep their figurative thumbs out of their figurative butts and do useful things.

It would be simple to prove Genesis 2:7 to be false.

Prove how life began to exist.

Until such time as you clearly state what Gen 2:7 means there isn't much point in mentioning it. It's gibberish. You don't seem to understand that you have formed in your mind a presumption of its meaning with all its collateral detail that the rest of us haven't.

I did argue on here somewhere if Hawking's instanton was the cause of the universe beginning to exist it would be God.

And you would be wrong because word salad does not evidence make.

"Hawking's instanton" is one of your magic beans that you seem to think make any recipe come out right. Take some cat poo, filbert husks and Hawking intantons and you have a feast the whole family can enjoy. It really doesn't work that way.

Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:34 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 11:31 AM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 20 of 687 (520596)
08-22-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
08-22-2009 11:31 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
No comment on the babbling.

Nor upon anything else of value.

You have a nice day, ICANT. I, unlike your thread, am going somewhere.

Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 11:31 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 43 of 687 (520668)
08-22-2009 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
08-22-2009 9:35 PM


Getting Old
But I have been told that science has proven that information false.

No you haven't. Tuffers said the creation story had been shown to be wrong. You interpreted this thusly: Only Gen 1:1 speaks of the creation; therefore, tuffers is saying that Gen 1:1 has been scientifically proven false. Tuffers needs to present evidence that Gen 1:1 In the beginning God creates the heaven and the earth.

Tuffers corrected you on this in the other tread where this all started. Huntard explained this to you. Modulous explained this to you.

Back to my first post in this thread: If your entire argument is that it hasn't been proven that a god of some sort did not create the Heavens and the Earth you,ll not find any sane challengers. That makes you a winner, Yeah!

No one has said that Gen 1:1 has been proven wrong. Gen 1:1 doesn't say enough that it can be proven wrong. It's the bits about God filling gazebos with baby back ribs and potato salad on the third day before setting up the picnic tables and shooing the pigeons on the fifth day that bring the story into question with science.

I am just asking for the evidence that proves Genesis 1:1 false.

There is none. That has been conceded. Has it really been so long since someone has agreed with you that you don't recognize it?

That evidence would be the facts about how the universe began to exist.

That would not disprove Gen 1:1. It is not possible to falsify Gen 1:1. That is one of the reasons it can't be considered a scientific statement.

You got any evidence to present?

No. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Not to your misinterpretation of the original statement.

However, as I said earlier; Gen 1:1 is the claim. The claim is the bit that evidence need be supplied for.

AbE: Hey Admin, Why did my second [midt=x] include the word "Message". It worked fine for the first one.

Edited by lyx2no, : ?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : For the second message link, the message number was 591534. This message does not yet exist - the link is bad. I'm guessing it should have been message number 519534. I will change it to that and find if such is correct - Yes, it is.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:35 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-23-2009 1:43 AM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2009 4:46 PM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 59 of 687 (520759)
08-23-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
08-23-2009 4:46 PM


Re: Getting Older
That is plain to me.

If you have a different explanation lets have it.

It has been explained it to you more then once, but I'm always happy to give it another try.

When you are chairing one of your bi-monthly meetings of The Secret Society of Utter Nut-Balls have you ever noticed tuffers to be in attendance? No? That's because he's not a member. When non-members use the phrase "The creation story" they're not referring to just the first ten words. Like the hand shake, the ten word rule is a members only idiosyncrasy.

Tuffers, and other non-members, mean all of it. Sloppy usage to be sure, but when in Rome… So when tuffers says "science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional…" he means the bits about God creating hot dog buns in packs of ten when all the scientific evidence 'proves' they only come in eights.

tuffers said "science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional".

That is plain to me.

If you have a different explanation lets have it.

Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Declarative sentence of completed action. God created not will create in the 7 days found in Genesis 1:2-2:3.

Therefore tuffers said science has proven Genesis 1:1 false unless fiction means something else.

I simply ask for the evidence that proves Genesis 1:1 false/fictional.

You really, really don't need to keep saying this, though maybe you do need to read it.

No one has said Gen 1:1 has be shown to be wrong: No one. No one even tried. You have turned tuffers statement into your statement and then demand that he defend it. He is only responsible for defending his own statements. (Which, by the way, he hasn't done either, but as it's been done to death it shouldn't be necessary.)

lxyn2o writes:

Tuffers needs to present evidence that Gen 1:1 In the beginning God creates the heaven and the earth.

You'll have to take that up with lxyn2o. The man's been at the swill, if you ask me. It's not even a full sentence.

But I can't understand why the facts would not falsify Genesis 1:1 if it is not correct.

Because Gen 1:1 only say that God did it. It does not restriction how God did it. Therefore, no matter how it was done God could have done it.

Try this: You're playing Clue with an idiot. The cards are all dealt out, the clues hidden away. On the idiot's first roll he declares he did it. No one has his card, save maybe himself, but he's an idiot. He has no alibi. Now if he said he did it with a wrench, well, Colonel mustard produces the wrench. If he said he did it in the study, Miss Scarlet was in the study. If he said the victim was Mr. Green, Mr. Green can put up a fuss. But, until such time as more is said the idiot's story can't be contradicted. Any idiot can present a story too vague to be contradictable. Especially in ten words or less.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2009 4:46 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by caldron68, posted 08-23-2009 9:44 PM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 61 of 687 (520765)
08-23-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by caldron68
08-23-2009 9:44 PM


Re: Getting Older
Considering that science has proven the broader story of Genesis to be false, isn't it only logical to assume that the first 10 words are also false?

I too consider it false. Not based on the rest of Genesis but on there being nothing to indicate that there is a god to start with.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by caldron68, posted 08-23-2009 9:44 PM caldron68 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 10:51 PM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 64 of 687 (520773)
08-23-2009 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by kbertsche
08-23-2009 10:51 PM


Re: Getting Older
Do you believe in the Easter bunny?


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 10:51 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Sasuke, posted 08-24-2009 2:57 AM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 86 of 687 (520830)
08-24-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Sasuke
08-24-2009 2:57 AM


Re: Getting Older
do you believe in protons, electrons, and neutrons?

Mere moments ago I called down the wrath of God upon a sibling with the expected null result. If the sibling does not cease and desist I shall call down the wrath of electrons. I don't expect them to be as ineffective.

Edited by lyx2no, : Edit error.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Sasuke, posted 08-24-2009 2:57 AM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Sasuke, posted 08-24-2009 5:38 PM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 103 of 687 (520895)
08-24-2009 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Sasuke
08-24-2009 5:38 PM


Re: Getting Older
but are they really protons, neutrons or electrons? Do you actually KNOW?

Yes. Unless you have a magic meaning for the giant word "KNOW". You should open a new topic out of it.

OPEN YOUR MIND!

MAKE SURE THE JAR IS RIGHT SIDE UP.

AbE:

I am glad I started going to college...
Dang, I was tempted to make some sort of smarmy comment about your having just started collage, too. I was guessing about two to three weeks into philosophy 101.

Edited by lyx2no, : Prophetic.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Sasuke, posted 08-24-2009 5:38 PM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Sasuke, posted 08-24-2009 8:11 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 177 of 687 (521475)
08-27-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by ICANT
08-27-2009 12:33 PM


Beach Ball Guts
Hi ICANT

You're still understanding the ballon analogy in three dimensions. People are used to thinking in three dimensions. But space-time occurs in four dimensions making it difficult for some, and impossible for others to think about. To help get around this difficulty we reduce the space-time problem to the two spatial dimensions of the ballon's surface and one time dimension of the balloon's expansion. The balloon is also huge: The visible Universe is only a quarter sized patch; which, to the patch people, looks perfectly flat (so far).

There is no inside or outside of the balloon. Opposite sides of the balloon are not becoming increasingly distant through the balloon, but only across the surface. The path through the balloon has a never increasing length of zero because it doesn't exist. Hence, no marble particles lined up inside spreading out as the Universe expands. Only the surface expands because that's all there is to expand.

At 10-43 the balloon was tiny but expanding in all four dimensions. Then during the incredibly short interval between 10-35 - 10-33 there was an inflationary period where the ball expanded by a factor of at least 1026before settling back to near today's rate. This inflationary expansion pushed the greater part of the balloon well beyond the horizon. The distance to this horizon =ct, where c = the speed of light and t = time elapsed since the event: 13.7•109 Light•years.

What is beyond 13.7•109 Light•years? Ordinary, every day universe. The folks who live on the edge of our patch are the center of their patch. They see just as much universe spreading away from them on all sides as we do from us. But they aren't looking at the Universe in (not at) the same time we are. As we look over their way we see what they were like 13.7•109 years ago. They see what they look like now and see us as we were 13.7•109 years ago.

It's quite fun trying to keep it all straight, really.

AbE: It seems cavediver and I are talking about two different beach ball models. I'll edit mine as the balloon model to avoid confusion, and come back to make an additional note of how the two models are incompatible when I have a bit of time.

Edited by lyx2no, : AbE.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 12:33 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by NosyNed, posted 08-27-2009 4:02 PM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 195 of 687 (521552)
08-27-2009 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by NosyNed
08-27-2009 4:02 PM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
Hi Ned

Thank you, but the only part of cavediver's model I have a bit of trouble with is when cavediver combines it with the statement "so every point in space and time, past present and future, can equally be regarded as the point and moment of creation." I get that all lines of longitude are equally spatial centers where creation began, but I can't quite manage any point being equally T=0. I'm one of those points and I'm under the impression, maybe wrongly, that temporally I'm 13.7 billion years away from T=0. Or maybe I misinterpreted the statement. It's been known to happen. I'd invite an explanation, but kidnapping ICANT's thread wouldn't be nice. But if I'm right that time is increasing from left to right in the ball model, I like the added benefit of the slope of the cone being able to represent rate of expansion.

ICANT! Read flatland by A. Square (Edwin Abbot) already.

Hello greyseal

No, the story of Genesis 1:1 is man's attempt to explain how the universe was created.

ICANT's got you on this one. Gen. 1:1 only mentions the interval 0≺t≺td: the instant the Universe came into existence. The BBT doesn't touch it. That's his story and he's sticking with it. All that Birds before plants stuff is later.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by NosyNed, posted 08-27-2009 4:02 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 12:19 AM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 199 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 6:13 AM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 201 of 687 (521602)
08-28-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by cavediver
08-28-2009 6:13 AM


Re: Beach Ball Dimensions
Thanks, cavediaver, I was beating my brains out trying to figure out what I was misconstruing.

HI ICANT

I read every word you write with more un-restrainable glee then anyone's since Buzzsaw left us. And I don't start school till Monday.

You'll note while arguing with you I used the examples of potato salad before picnic tables and hot dog buns in packs of ten and hot dogs in eights. That's because you have a tendency to drag insignificant points into arguments as if they were meaningful. I figured greyseal could deal with "birds before plant" as the details of it weren't important to the point that you, by "creation story", meant the exact, naked instant of creation and not later details of the order of finding and burying acorns.

Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 6:13 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 11:46 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 208 of 687 (521676)
08-28-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by ICANT
08-28-2009 11:38 AM


Re: Information please
Thank you for your good wishes, ICANT. I enjoy school immensely and so will put everything I've got into it.

Is length a physical thing? The distance between two objects is not made of a material as one understands materials; so, why should the distance between events be made of a material as one understands materials? If one thinks of length as the distance between objects and time as the distance between events they will both map in the same way in the models. Time is not a concept of man. We merely measure it as we measure distance.

Cavediver's beach ball is also made of nothing. It's imaginary. We imagine line of latitude and longitude upon it's surface to make it easier to name points of space-time so that we can relate them. Cavedivere's model reduces all three dimensions into a single dimesion ring. Any two events on a ring have a time distance of zero between them; and the length distance between them is represented by their separation on the ring.

We are viewing the beach ball from an imaginary fourth dimension. The radii of the rings are writ in the same imaginary dimension. It is not a dimension that translates from the model into the real world. No objects can move through it. No measurements can be made through it.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 11:38 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 3:49 PM lyx2no has responded
 Message 216 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 4:46 PM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 229 by Sasuke, posted 08-28-2009 8:53 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 239 of 687 (521797)
08-29-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
08-28-2009 3:49 PM


Re: Information please
That was not the question. And is not an answer but a question.

You are correct, it was, in fact, a rhetorical question designed to point you into the wind, as it were.

I stated time is a concept of a man. I came to that conclusion because, as I said I can not observe, touch, taste, smell, hear, or even experience time.

[rhetoric] So, you don't experience time, ey? Then if I say wait a minute I can instantly pop out or wait 17 years and you'd not notice any difference? I somehow doubt the sincerity of your position; have you thought it out at all? [/retoric]

So what part of time do you measure distance with?

You're going to have to convince me that you're not being intentionally perverse on this one.

If time is a property of the universe, time did not exist until after the universe began to exist. That makes things kinda messy.

Tensile strength is a property of steel: I have in my hand a steel, toe nail clipper. Where does the tensile strength begin: Just outside the body of the clipper; at the body of the clipper; or some short distance into the body of the clipper? Not messy at all.

But no time is not important to me as I live in a universe that exists in an eternal now. It has a thing we call time that is a concept in the mind of man. A tool invented by man to measure intervals and duration by a system that is based on the revolutions of the earth in relation to the sun.

Important to you is not a standard of regard. My toe nail clippers are likely of little interest to you and yet retain their tensile strength.

Man is the only creature that carries a watch or is concerned with time.

Don't feed your dog on time and an see if he doesn't experience time.

So let's see, Now you got a universe that can not exist without time, and you got time that can not exist with a universe. We are back to circular reasoning.

This is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when someone depends upon argument "A" to defend Argument "B" and depends upon argument "B" to defend argument "A". Where does the color of a crayon begin: Just outside the body of the crayon; at the body of the crayon; or some short distance into the body of the crayon? There is no property of your argument that can turn the end of my straight, unbended crayon to meet in a circle, Buzzsaw, ICANT.

What does my understand have to do with what my position is?

If there is a correlation I have yet to discover it.

If I fall asleep it is now. When I wake up it is now. For some reason it is always now.

If you haven't noticed you're also always "here". Have you not experienced space either?


Nice Great post, lyx2no...

Thanks again, cavediver.

Hmmm...is it not?

"Materials" are simply collections of values in the quantum fields (quarks, electrons, photons, gluons, etc.) "Distance" is simply a collection of values in the metric field. The quantum fields and the metric field, in most schemes, are facets of a unfied field. So time, distance, and stuff is all the same! Cool, huh?

I'm going to have to stand by my qualifier " as one understands materials" and further qualify "one" to mean "me". My understanding of QM is often studied by seismologist. But very cool.


こんにちは sasuke

What about the very fabric of space?

My understanding of the fabric of space is that of a metaphor. As I delve into QM that is subject to change, I'm certain. But as of now, and not some eternal now, but the real now, …


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 3:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 11:08 AM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 243 of 687 (521825)
08-29-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ICANT
08-29-2009 11:08 AM


Lost in Time. Lost in Space. It's about Time I Slapped Your Face.*
I would experience the interval but I would not experience time.

That interval you experienced: it's called time. That's the name of it. Yeah, two guys were sitting around one day and one asked the other "What should we call these intervals we're experiencing?", and the second guy said "Time." And the the First guy said "Okay?" And that's how we got the word that you keep confusing for the thing, which is called reification. I got a story about how that word came to be, too. Want to hear it? Two guys were sitting around one day and…

Are you saying time is physical.

Hence the implication of my rhetorical question "Is length a physical thing?". Time and space are both equally physical. That is one reason it is dealt with in physics.

If it is what is it made of?

What is length made of? Some kind of quantum field.

Okay, this is my best understanding of the situation. I'm not what one could call satisfied with this take yet, but It's what I've got and will be built upon as I study it more.

There are fields. I don't know exactly (spelled v-a-g-u-e-l-y) what a field is but I can work with that. I don't know what gravity is either.

How many fields there are I also don't know, but fields interact with themselves and each other. Different fields interact in different ways. Some of the fields interact to form the particles we know (and surly others we don't know). These particles can interact with other fields such as the dimensional fields. Of the three spatial fields we are familiar with we can interact with then forward and backward and willfully. These particles can only react to the temporal field in a forward direction.

There may be fields out there that can interact with the temporal field. It might interact with three temporal fields and react with only one spatial field. Where the ICANT in that universe understands it perfectly, and the cavediver is saying "But I'm always here, this and that."

These fields are drifting about in their version of time and space. Something we wouldn't necessarily consider time and space even if we could interact with it. 13.7 billion years ago, as we reckon time, the right combination of fields began to interact to form the Universe we live in. The didn't begin to react because of some reason more significant then the reason I kicked a hammer that my sister left lying on the floor last night: because it was there.

Yes, ICANT, this is all metaphysics. But it is exceptionally explanatory even at my rudimentary stage of understanding and construction.

What does "explanatory" have to do with anything? It gives me the ability to make things up and test them. Let me make up something right now. Lets say time is actually two fields that are pulling away from each other which we are reacting to. If the two fields somehow reversed maybe we could travel through time in the other direction. Or if the fields were lumpy they'd pull apart at different rates in different areas. Maybe the inflationary period was caused by time dramatically deforming so lots of events could occur in what looked to us like a short time just like distorted light looks like its coming from somewhere other than where it is. How do I test these things. Nobel first, answers second, dudes. I don't trust any of you shifty lot.

The point is, I can navigate through the conundrums of time and space almost as easily as I can navigate through Boston. Not that I'm great with Boston. I'm not stuck on the Blue line going "The subway had to exist before the rail, but then it wouldn't be a subway so the rail had to come before the subway in the eternal now."

*Playground rhyme. I've never understood the intent.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 11:08 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 7:32 PM lyx2no has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019