@ Garland: “I mean, sure, you could believe that the entire world is an illusion and nothing is really real or meaningful, if you want to take it that far.” I’m not sure how you get this conclusion from my comments. The ironic thing is I am not doing this at all; this kind of relativism is precisely what I deny. My philosophy is that only physical objects exist, and that any “laws” pertaining thereunto are abstractions MAN uses to organize. In order for man to have real truth, man must be the ONE inexorably objective VALUE (my philosophy is utterly devoted to the affirmation of human lives, BTW). We organize our world by inventing systems and models which then serve as references that mankind via consensus agrees to. What scientists do is not “discover” physical “laws” which “govern”. Science observes the actions which are DIRECT functions of observable objects and then makes models of these observations. They balance the measurements via mathematics…as a means of verifying that their models are consistent with each other. I have no issue with that. The problem is that man invents these models and constructs his theories using abstract placeholders like space and time and constants and then proceeds to declare that his models and constants are CAUSAL. Meaning, they are no longer mere tools of organization coming from that which is REAL truth, humanity (people), but they become the FORCE behind what objects DO. They put the cart before the horse. Thus, instead of man being the singularity of value, from which all meaning and truth is derived (indeed, God is FOR man’s LIFE…truth is FOR man, it does not CAUSE man), man is placed OUTSIDE truth, and becomes nothing more than a function of “laws” and impossible concepts which determine his actions. This is why I believe science is inherently Platonist, like Calvinism. Physical laws are the “forms” and man and everything else is are the “shadows”. The mistake scientists make in their hubris is thinking that they are immune to epistemological consistency. They get to conjure up abstract ideas and declare them agents of creation. Sorry…but I’m not playing anymore. My question: “What time did time begin” is proof that time cannot really exist. Meaning, all notions of “age” are merely a function of what value man wants to give the the abstraction of “time”. If they answer NO time, then all values of time are by definition a direct function of zero. ZERO is the constant (the reference value for all other amounts of time). For example, what is one unit of time if the reference time is zero? What is one unit of zero? Zero. What is ten units of zero? Zero. So…there is no actual value to ANY amount of time. But if they say time started at, say, ONE (unit ONE is the reference for all subsequent amounts of time), then they concede that ONE is CONSTANT (it is “always there”, thus NOT actually moving through time, making the timeline STATIC) then the reference is infinity. Which means that subsequent amounts of time are a function of “infinity”, and as such no “amount” of time can have an actual, non-theoretical, value. For example, what is one unit of infinity? Infinity. What is 50 units of infinity? Infinity. The reason there is no answer to this question that works in reality is because time is not an actual THING. Time is a derivative of what is REAL, and that is the OBJECT in question. Things are real. People are real. Physical “laws” are not real (physical). They are ideas. Only existing because man exists.
Posted on: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:34:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015