Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Classic Example of an Incoherent Worldview
Canon Fodder ^ | January 30, 2015 | Michael J. Kruger

Posted on 02/18/2015 7:39:18 AM PST by Gamecock

As one considers the values of Hollywood and American pop culture, it would be easy to conclude that no one is concerned all that much about morality. The dominant message is that people should live whatever life-style suits their personal preferences.  What is right for one person is not necessarily what is right for another.

Or so it would seem.

Just about the time you are convinced that Hollywood thinks morality is relative, a major entertainment figure steps forward and speaks out vigorously about a moral cause. Maybe it’s the environment. Or perhaps its racism. Or maybe the moral cause is caring for the poor.  Regardless, it turns out that, in certain instances, morality is absolute after all.  In regard to these moral issues, apparently everyone should be on board.

Such was the case with the latest statements by the actress Julianne Moore. The headline I read about her most recent interview said it all:

“Oscar Actress Frontrunner: I Don’t Believe in God; Gun Control a Must.”

Now right off the bat, it is clear that there are some serious problems with Moore’s worldview.  First, she stumbles into the very problem mentioned above. How can we take her moral position seriously, when the message of her industry is that there are no moral absolutes? You can’t say, on the one hand, “Live whatever life-style you want,” and then, on the other hand, say, “You must follow this particular moral position” (in this case, gun control). It’s one or the other.

But, the second problem is even bigger than the first. In addition to making moral claims, Moore makes it clear that she doesn’t believe in God. Apparently, then, she has an atheistic worldview. Of course, she is free to have such a worldview, but the problem is that it doesn’t square with her moral crusade for gun control.

Presumably, she is concerned about gun control because she values human life.  She believes it is “wrong” to take a human life, and wants to prevent as many human deaths as possible. But, on an atheistic worldview, why is human life more important than any other life? It is just the product of billions of years of mindless evolution.  On an atheistic worldview, taking a human life is no different than taking the life of a cockroach.  On an atheistic worldview, there is no right and wrong at all.

Later in the interview, Moore admits as much.  She says:

“I learned when my mother died five years ago that there is no ‘there’ there,” she reflects. “Structure, it’s all imposed. We impose order and narrative on everything in order to understand it. Otherwise, there’s nothing but chaos.”

Basically, according to Moore, there is no inherent meaning in the universe–meaning is just something we “impose” on a world filled with “chaos.”  All good and well, but what then is the ground for her moral claims about gun control and the value of human life?  In a world without meaning, why would it matter what one human does to another?  It is just one bag of molecules doing something to another bag of molecules.

Of course, Moore might respond and say, “You can still have morality on an atheistic worldview. Morality is determined by what is good for the most people.  And gun control is good for the most people.”

But, this just creates a new moral code out of thin air, namely that “Morality is determined by what is good for the most people.”  Where does this moral standard come from? Did she just make it up? And why should people follow it? Moreover, how does Moore determine what is good for the most people?  What counts as “good”?

In the end, Moore’s worldview faces some serious philosophical challenges. She wants to have absolute morality so that she can declare murder wrong (and thus advocate gun control), but at the same time she provides no coherent basis for what makes something right or wrong.  Indeed, she has a worldview that actually destroys the possibility of their actually being any real right or wrong.

When someone has such an obviously incoherent worldview, it makes one wonder how that happens.  What leads someone to embrace two obviously contradictory premises?  The Bible actually provides an answer for this.  The Scriptures teach that men and women are made in the image of God and the law of God is written on their heart (Rom 2:14-15). This explains why Moore insists that murder is wrong (which leads her to advocate gun control).

The Scriptures also teach that unbelievers suppress this truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-23).  Even though Moore knows there is a God, she refuses to admit such a thing and tries to live her life without him.  Thus, her contradictory worldview is inevitable.  She is trying to get away from God, but cannot escape him because the Law of God is written on her own heart.

Of course, it should be noted that Christians agree with Moore’s concern for human life.  We agree that it is wrong to murder (regardless of what one thinks about the merits of gun control laws).  The difference is that Christians actually have a coherent reason for why murder is wrong, namely because humans are made in the image of God (and thus are different from the cockroach), and because God has commanded us not to murder.

While non-Christians might act moral, and might advocate moral acts, only Christians have grounds for why an act is moral or immoral in the first place.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: betty boop

Consider Jesus spitting on ground making spitty mud to rub in some blind dudes eyes.. in front of a gaggle of folks/Jews.. some obsessed with being clean.. others that would ‘nife you for spitting on them..

The inherent humor of this does not escape me.. but sadly it does some..


61 posted on 02/24/2015 12:05:02 PM PST by hosepipe (" This propaganda has been edited (specifically) to include some fully orbed hyperbole.. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I have derived my cosmology from what I believe to have been the initial conditions, when dimension space and dimension time became distinctly not ‘the other’. Space would evolve from point (in the point/moment of the started differentiation) to line to plane to volume. But when line is expressed all the points making up that line remain in existence due to their proximity to moment; when linear time expresses all the moments remain in existence making up the linear temporal expression, etc., through plane/planar, etc. I imagine the first expression of the Universe of God’s creation would have been the initial point/moment. I have yet to fathom how the singularity prior to point/moment would be described. To this realm of expressing spacetime ‘coordinates’ God has Added other dimensions with expressing variables. A living organism is made up of organs, which are in turn made up of cells. At some ‘least’ expression we might say the dimension from which life expresses is woven into the spacetime coordinate system. Would we say a prion is ‘alive’?


62 posted on 02/24/2015 12:18:19 PM PST by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

For a living thing to exist it must have variability in space, in time, and in life. For human living to express it has variability in the three but also in whatever source brings spirit into the mix.


63 posted on 02/24/2015 12:19:48 PM PST by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; MHGinTN; hosepipe; xzins; marron; YHAOS; TXnMA
Thank you so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

And thank you two too, dear brothers MHGinTN and hosepipe, for all of your insights!

When considering such issues, I think of the singularity as a mathematical point, that is having no coordinates at all. Spatially speaking, a world of one coordinate would be a line, two a plane, three a cube and so on.

In Everett's multi-world cosmology (actually another interpretation of quantum mechanics) - the wave function never collapses. Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead. A world exists where I chose bacon for breakfast and another where I chose sausage and so on.

But of course even if such were the structure of dimensional reality, a man only experiences one moment at a time, one after another, serially-sequentially to his cognition. And as you so astutely pointed out, even then he never actually experiences anything in the present due to time elapsing between perception and cognition.

His experience of life I see as a line of moments which appear to him to be causally connected past>present>future. In theories which posit more than one dimension of time, each of those moments always exist concurrently. The man is merely experiencing them in a line.

If we could make a copy of the universe in a moment, it would appear as a plane of time, or more accurately a membrane since space is warped. If we could could do this for all moments in time, like a video but real, it would appear as a volume of time. It would be interesting to page to a particular date and time for an "instant replay."

And if Everett's theory were correct, we'd have that for all potential universes as well, e.g. the universe where I had bacon this morning would also be a volume.

To borrow from Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe, the mortal man (frog in his article) sees a particle orbiting, but the one above it (bird in his article) sees a strand of spaghetti, i.e. the beginning and end of the particle and all points in between. If the frog sees two particles orbiting, the bird sees two strands of spaghetti twisted in a double helix. The frog himself looks like a bowl of spaghetti to the bird.

Likewise, to God our individual lives are start to finish and all points along the way visible to Him through we are experiencing life serially-sequentially. That will no doubt cause much concern later on:

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. - Matthew 12:36

It would be all the more troubling if Everett's cosmology were correct because then not only would we have to recall everything we ever did or said - but all of our squandered potentials as well.

There will be no hiding place as the old song goes:

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:8

Thank you again so very much for all of your thought-provoking insights, dearest sister in Christ!

64 posted on 02/26/2015 9:14:15 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

In Everett’s multi-world cosmology (actually another interpretation of quantum mechanics) - the wave function never collapses. Schrödinger’s cat is both alive and dead. A world exists where I chose bacon for breakfast and another where I chose sausage and so on.


I see.. Time is a commodity like sand or pages in a book..
and a life like a library(bible).. and a family like bricks in a building..
(some one stop me)..

I like it......


65 posted on 02/27/2015 5:19:22 AM PST by hosepipe (" This propaganda has been edited (specifically) to include some fully orbed hyperbole.. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
I like it, too, dear hosepipe!

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. - I Peter 2:5


66 posted on 02/27/2015 7:41:37 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
Thank you, Dear Sister in Christ, for remembering that (despite my L-O-N-G absence from FR -- I do still exist, and am still interested in subjects like this!

However, I'll have to backtrack through the thread before I dare comment further... '-)

67 posted on 02/28/2015 6:35:13 AM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
Isn’t ‘imposed’ order, randomly selected at some time or place, on irreversible chaos, simply an additional chaotic moment in time?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm glad you included the modifier, "irreversible". '-)

With that included, I can agree with your statement.

Otherwise, I harken back to that (slightly earlier) moment in time when,

Genesis 1 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God ["Ruach Elohim"] moved upon the face of the waters.

...when (IMO) The One Who Can Organize Chaos imposed order that persists to this day -- as stars, galaxies, as the full periodic table of naural elements ("the dust of the ground") -- and as us -- whose bodies were formed therefrom -- upon the chaos described in the preceding sentence....

68 posted on 02/28/2015 7:17:19 AM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; xzins; MHGinTN
I suspect volumetric time is the matrix into which linear time is nested. Mostly, it is never directly perceived by human beings.

~~~~

Dear Sister in Christ, Your mention of "volumetric time" brings to mind our discussions of "The Universal 'Now'".

Since all of our inputs vis-a-vis time are transmitted to us by one form or another of electromagnetic or physical vibrations, we "see" an astronomically distant event as displaced in time by the time required for EM information about it to reach us. (The "C" limitation...)

Only a Being in a totally different dimension (i.e. "God") can see the "simultaneous instantaneous reality" of all points in our universe ( Universal NOW") -- without that distortion that is imposed upon us by "C"...

So, I think we're both tallking about the same thing: "volumetric" or "multidimensional" time -- the perception of which may remain beyond our reach -- as long as we are "bound within" the dimensions of this universe...

We have much to anticipate!

69 posted on 02/28/2015 7:43:12 AM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Of course, we remember you - and pray for you, earnestly! And I'm thrilled to see you on thread!

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

70 posted on 02/28/2015 8:48:22 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; xzins; MHGinTN; YHAOS
Only a Being in a totally different dimension (i.e. "God") can see the "simultaneous instantaneous reality" of all points in our universe ( Universal NOW") -- without that distortion that is imposed upon us by "C"...

Indeed. The human point of view is limited by "C." So much of contemporary science depends upon the speed of light being a universal constant. Moreover, especially nowadays, it seems people feel most "comfortable" looking at the world through the lens of "science."

Yet to the extent that the scientific method deals only with observables, are we sure that any complete description of all observables in time (not that such a thing would even be possible) would yield a complete picture of "all that there is?"

"Science" claims the competence to do this, I gather. But it still has to deal with the sheer improbability, indeed impossibility, of a "complete and accurate record/picture of all that there is" on the basis of data taken and evaluated according to a model of sequential, irreversible time, at every moment of all the time of the Universe.

Bluntly put, this is not possible. Nobody lives long enough to take the complete record; and nobody stands outside the "place" wherein the record is being taken. There is no Archimedian Point anywhere in the Universe where a human person can take a stand to view the Universe entire; that is, as if he were NOT a part of the Universe; as if he were not already an implicated participant of the total universal order, instead deeming himself perfectly free to impose his own habits of thought and desire upon the "proper" view of it.

God alone sees the ALL of space and time as manifested in his Creation, Alpha to Omega. He has given the gift of Reason to his children, but not the gift of seeing as He sees.

We must do the best we can with that.

All thanks and praise be unto our Lord!

71 posted on 03/03/2015 12:19:06 PM PST by betty boop (Say good-bye to mathematical logic if you wish to preserve your relations with concrete realities!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; marron; xzins; hosepipe; YHAOS
It would be all the more troubling if Everett's cosmology were correct because then not only would we have to recall everything we ever did or said - but all of our squandered potentials as well.

And not only "recall" such things, but have to account for them at Judgment — the "them" including all the roads not taken.

I find Everett's multiworld cosmology highly interesting. But the fact of the matter is, I do not see how such musings can serve as the basis, or foundation, of a moral code.

Everett's theory, extrapolated to moral theory, seems to require that, not only do we have to account for the decisions/acts we have actually made, but we are asked to account for all the decisions we did NOT make.

But that would be to make every single human person responsible, not just for his own acts, but of EVERYTHING that transpires in the Universe — that is, it makes the individual human person personally responsible for all "the roads NOT taken."

This makes no sense to me. What am I missing???

As for Schrödinger's Cat problem. The problem is more apparent than real, or so it seems to me. For there is no way that a cat can be simultaneously "alive" and "dead" — in a single moment. Wait till the next moment, and take another reading....

But then, I am probably too "simple-minded" for my own good.... I also happen to set great store in simple common sense.

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for sharing your penetrating reflections on this matter!

72 posted on 03/03/2015 3:46:15 PM PST by betty boop (Say good-bye to mathematical logic if you wish to preserve your relations with concrete realities!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; marron; xzins; hosepipe; YHAOS
Everett's theory, extrapolated to moral theory, seems to require that, not only do we have to account for the decisions/acts we have actually made, but we are asked to account for all the decisions we did NOT make.

Indeed. That would be the implication. Then again, I suspect most people do not approve of his theory or its theological implication - or care whether Schrödinger's Cat is alive or dead.

Like nonlocality, the cat is a "spooky" observation in quantum mechanics.

Thank you so very much for all your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

73 posted on 03/03/2015 9:30:45 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl
we are asked to account for all the decisions we did NOT make.

Actually, that is my view. And that would be the part of judgement that will be most uncomfortable.

Not accounting for your sins, which are forgiven, but being shown the many times God put me or you into a situation for a reason, crossing paths with someone for a reason, and I being too caught up in my own drama, fail to see what my role ought to have been. And the consequences in the lives of the people around me because I didn't see it.

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..."

The sin part is covered. Its the falling short part that is going to be painful to see when and if it is shown to us.

Just you being you, with God leading you, you will no doubt have many situations where you were there to be a stabilizing influence, to say a kind word, to bail someone out of a jam, to lead from the front or influence from behind the scenes, because you were the only one of God's chess pieces available. And probably you did, without realizing it, what was required of you. But the times you didn't, the times you thought it was about you when it was about someone else near you, will be painful to see.

I might be wrong. But that is how I think.

74 posted on 03/04/2015 7:33:41 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: marron; betty boop

Beautifully said and I strongly agree, dear brother in Christ! It would hurt but I would want to know the true effect of my poor decisions or missed opportunities.


75 posted on 03/04/2015 7:44:06 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Schrödinger's Cat

Schrödinger's Cat is a useful intellectual exercise . . . nothing more. (Oh . . . and a funny moment in an early Big Bang Theory episode)

76 posted on 03/04/2015 2:53:17 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: marron; Alamo-Girl
Not accounting for your sins, which are forgiven, but being shown the many times God put me or you into a situation for a reason, crossing paths with someone for a reason, and I being too caught up in my own drama, fail to see what my role ought to have been. And the consequences in the lives of the people around me because I didn't see it.

Certainly we are responsible for the negative consequences we create for other people by virtue of our decisions. A mature person weighs the probable consequences of various alternative actions before he makes his choice.

We do live in an age, however, that radically elevates and isolates the human individual from any sense of participation in, or duty, with respect to the wider community. Such a person very likely does not at all fear God's Judgment, for the simple reason that he either doubts God "exists," or has positively denied Him. What occurs then is a major disordering of the individual, and concomitant disordering of whatever his acts can reach.

The "war on Christianity" proceeds apace; and as it does, our society becomes more and more chaotic, disordered, dysfunctional, crass, greedy, and vicious. Certainly God does not intend for his children to live in that way, but He leaves the choice to us. And ineluctably, we will have to account to God for our choices....

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God...." We necessarily fall short of the glory of God for we are images, mere reflections of Him, not the "original" being imaged or reflected.

Yet the imago Dei in which we were created is the most important part of us. And the most important relation we can have in life is our relation to God. Simply put, this relation is expressed in the Great Commandment, to love God with all one's heart and soul and mind and strength, and — the following corollary — to love our neighbor as ourself. The cardinal Christian virtues of faith and hope and love, and the help of the Holy Spirit, are our faithful guides to life more abundantly in this life and the next, for ourselves and those whom we influence by our words and deeds.

But we all fall short. And the reckoning for our falling short that we owe Jesus Christ on Judgment Day will doubtless be painful.

It seems to me the best we can do is to follow Christ, to try to live constantly in the Presence of our Lord, in direct relation to Him. Our God is a merciful God....

Thank you dear brother marron for sharing your beautiful reflections.

77 posted on 03/09/2015 12:29:53 PM PDT by betty boop (Science deserves all the love we can give it, but that love should not be blind. — NR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Amen!

Beautifully and truly said, dearest sister in Christ!

78 posted on 03/09/2015 10:08:22 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; marron; xzins; hosepipe; YHAOS; MHGinTN
I suspect most people do not approve of [Everett's Multiworld] theory or its theological implication — or care whether Schrödinger's Cat is alive or dead.... Like nonlocality, the cat is a "spooky" observation in quantum mechanics.

Much food for thought there, dearest sister in Christ. But first, let me congratulate you on your 17th FReeper Anniversary (Mar 14, 1998)! I've recently had my own 17th (Mar 9, 1998). We've seen a whole lot of change over these 17 years....

Most memorable to me was the Great Exodus of 2007, in which it seems almost every professional scientist FReeper left Free Republic in high dudgeon, evidently owing to the fact that, in their perception, they could no longer have a "meaningful dialogue" about Darwin's theory with the majority of FReepers, who in their view were mainly knuckle-dragging morons (because they had issues with Darwin), and were Bible-thumping Christians to boot.

Thus we have here the creation of the category of the "Crevos" vs. the "Evolutionists" — the "Evos."

Funny thing is, I have no objection to the idea of an "evolving universe." I just think Darwin's Theory comes up seriously short of describing what this "evolution" consists of.

Whatever. Free Republic lost a few great contributors right there — though I was glad to see some others of these people go away.... But then this crowd established a new website, Darwin Central, supposedly devoted to "pure science," in order to counter the FR "creationist propaganda."But then all they did was to engage in personal gossip, personal vitruperation, ad hominum attacks against dissenters to the received doctrine....

Also, early on in this period, you dearest sister compiled "The Downside Legacy Archive," which is the most exhaustive collection of public record documents on the Clinton Administration I have ever come across. Much of this material strikes me as timely background information, given the current controversies swirling around Hitlery's self-designated "privileged" e-mails....

(The Downside Legacy Archive is still readily accessible through FR's home page.)

Anyhoot, during this period you and I met, and exchanged views. To the end that we collaborated on a couple of book projects. The first was Timothy (2006). We co-authored that one. The second was your splendid There Is Only One Great Commandment. (My contribution to the latter was limited to technical pre-press helps).

Timothy seems to have been very much in the mind of the folks who established Darwin Central. One of the first book reviews came from there, from a former FReeper by the name CeltJew. His review of the work was very brief, consisting of just four words: "This book is unreadable."

Needless to say, this was a signal to the denizens of DC to spare themselves from having to actually read the actual work. At no time did I see any effort over there to criticize any aspect of the work itself. Rather, a great deal of time and energy was expended in those precincts to engage in ad hominum attacks on the book's authors. [Some of which were pretty blood curdling....]

Which is to say I definitely know from first-hand experience what it means to be smeared and slimed by people who refuse to engage in rational discourse, preferring instead to rely on the tactic of "killing the messenger," whereupon the very message is supposedly disgraced, and thereby not worthy of anyone's attention.

Whatever; this is the world in which we all live nowadays.

* * * * * * *

Getting back to the italics at the top: I have been ruminating over Everett's Multiworld Theory in recent times. I figure it simply doesn't "hold water." For the same reason that scientific cosmologies in general do not "hold water." That is to say, do not correspond to actual Reality, but are rather attempts to obviate First Reality by invoking Second Realities....

In Timothy, you, dearest sister in Christ, contributed a wonderful article about scientific cosmologies, which shows that the common ground of attempts in scientific cosmology is the necessity of de-divinizing Reality in all its aspects. Scientific cosmologies insist that the evolution of natural things is conducted by an entirely material, random process. This approach to Reality is entirely grounded in an a-theist posture towards Reality: If you can't directly count or measure something, then it does't exist.

IIRC, you adduced something like 200+ scientific cosmologies for your article in Timothy, attributing each to its particular author or authors. [See the Appendix below].

RE: Everett's Multiword Theory: I'd like to refer the reader to David Bohm's concept of what a scientific theory is:

The word "theory" derives from the Greek theoria, which has the same root as "theatre", in a word meaning "to view" or "to make a spectacle." Thus it might be said that a theory is primarily a form of insight, i.e., a way of looking at the world, and not a form of knowledge of how the world is....

Compare this with the meaning of hypothesis — some thing a tad shakier than a bona-fide theory:

[A] hypothesis is a supposition, that is, an idea that is "put under" our reasoning, as a provisional base, which is to be tested experimentally for its truth or falsity. As is now well known, however, there can be no conclusive experimental proof of the truth or falsity of a general hypothesis which aims to cover the whole of reality.

Everett's Multiworld Theory seems to be at odds with Bohm's insight. The most egregious problem with Everett's "theory" is there is nothing about it that can be placed in the position of being subject to trials of "proof" or "falsity" — for the reason that these "alternative universes" are absolutely incapable of direct human observation in the first place, and that by definition.

Which gets us back to the some 200+ scientific cosmologies that you cite in your wonderful article in Timothy. There is one thing that they all have in common: All of them seek to explain the universe — its inception, its development or "evolution" — in terms that do not involve the idea of a Creator God, of any sort of divine "plan," for the Reality of which all we humans — alone among creatures — are full parts and participants....

These folks declare: "Nature did it!!!" There is no God to do anything at all. Indeed, God is pure "fiction" of human imagination that has no bearing whatsoever on factual Reality — as experienced by human beings down the ages....

Must close. Just let me say in closing that there is a huge difference between Everett's Multiworld Theory and Tegmark's Level IV Multiverse.

The first seems to be an offshoot of the Formalist school of mathematics; the second, the offshoot of the Platonist school of mathematics.

Formalist mathematics takes the view that mathematics itself is so "pure," that it does not refer to anything outside of itself. That is to say, the universal language of mathematics is never engaged in reference to anything outside of itself; i.e., it does not refer to any "what" beyond its own functioning.

Platonist mathematics — with which I'm pretty sure Tegmark personally affiliates — is always engaged in the "whatness" of the things it describes.

To put it another way, the formalist school views the universal language of mathematics as bottoming out in pure syntax; it provides no carriage of meaning, otherwise known as semantics.... Which is to say this school of mathematics either thinks questions of meaning have no value, or are impossible to frame in the first place.

The formalist idea of mathematics has been tested, and has been shown to fail.... Repeatedly.

As to the paradox of Schrödinger's Cat: I really do wonder whether Schrödinger put this forward as a joke. One hears that he ran away from the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics with his hair on fire. He was in a way the very opposite number of Werner Heisenberg, the "particle guy." Schrödinger was a "wave guy." Though the two men did not see eye to eye at the time, it is remarkable that in the two different mathematical approaches each used to describe his ultimate findings, both men's equations ended up describing the very same phenomenal Reality.

Go figure!!!

In closing, let me only say that I tot up the Paradox of Schrödinger's Cat right along with the ancient Paradox of Zeno....

Both problems have the same solution. They are not "paradoxes" at all. In both cases, it is just a question of "point of view"....

OR SO IT SEEMS TO ME.

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for sharing your insights, and your kind support, with me!

APPENDIX:

A Catalogue of Physical Cosmologies

Beginning and an end
classical big bang/big crunch Alexander Friedmann (1922); Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose (1965)
quantum tunnel effect Alexander Vilenkin (1982)
no-boundary instanton Stephen Hawking and James Hartle (1983)
Beginning but no end
classical big bang/big whimper Alexander Friedmann (1924); Georges Lemaître (1927); Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose (1965)
phoenix universe Georges Lemaître (1933); Richard C. Tolman (1934)
quantum tunnel effect/ Alexander Vilenkin (1982)
eternal inflation
cosmic Darwinism Lee Smolin (1992)
no-boundary instanton
Stephen Hawking and Neil Turok (1998)
No beginning and no end
static universe Albert Einstein (1917)
empty expanding universe Willem de Sitter (1917)
eternal expansion out of Arthur S. Eddington (1930)
a static universe
steady state Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle (1948)
quasi-steady state Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbridge and Jayant V. Narlikar (1993)
chaotic inflation Andre Linde
Planckian cosmic egg Mark Israelit and Nathan Rosen (1989)
big bounce Hans-Joachim Blome and Wolfgang Priester (1991)
ekpyrotic and cyclic universe Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok et al. (2001)
No beginning, but an end collapse out of a static universe Arthur S. Eddington (1930)
Cycle (recurrence)
oscillating universe Mark Israelit and Nathan Rosen (1989); Redouane Fakir (1998)
cyclic universe Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok et al. (2002)
circular time in a rotating universe Kurt Gödel (1949) big brunch/time-reversal Claus Kiefer and H. Dieter Zeh (1995)
Time-loop with/without end
self-creating universe John Richard Gott III and Li-Xin Li (1998)
Pseudo-beginning with/without a local end, background dependent
soft bang/emergent universe Eckard Rebhan (2000); George F. R. Ellis & Roy Maartens et al. (2003)
quantum fluctuation, Edward Tryon (1973); Robert de Sitter instability, etc. Brout et al. (1978); Alexei A. Starobinsky (1979); David Atkatz and Heinz R. Pagels (1982); John Richard Gott III (1982); Mark Israelit (2002)
pre big bang Gabriele Veneziano and Maurizio Gasperini (1991)
Pseudo-beginning with/without a local end, background independent
pre-geometry John A. Wheeler (1975); Peter W. Atkins (1981); Stephen Wolfram (2002)
loop quantum cosmology Abhay Ashtekar and Martin Bojowald et al. (2002)

79 posted on 03/16/2015 2:45:52 PM PDT by betty boop (Science deserves all the love we can give it, but that love should not be blind. — NR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I wonder, have you ever thought that maybe the Universe keeps expanding because God has not yet commanded that 'light stop being'...

Dimension Space was first a point, and Dimension Time was first a moment, so the first expression of 'the Universe' was point-moment. When God commanded 'Light be' the continuous expressing of point-moment may have been running for some growing amount of 'zero point field' and the expression of electro-magnetic phenomena would have been rather profound since the 'collisions' would produce 'things' much larger than all the point-moments around before the expression of electro-magnetic 'things'. IOW, the 'BANG' is continuing because God The Creator has not yet halted the expressing of lots of 'point-moment'.

The volume of Space-Time is full of point-moment and continuing to grow. With the advent of many 'things' formed in this volume, many more complex expressions of Dimension Space have appeared, and many more expressions of Dimension Time have appeared, but we are Created in such a fashion as we cannot sense the 'more complex' expressions of Time but we can sense the more complex expressions of Space because we sense linear, planar, and volume (length, width, and height, for those in Rio Linda). For reference, a photon only senses length or libear Space.

There is planar time and volumetric time, but we only occasionally confront these, as in the Fifth Chapter of Daniel, or Jesus exiting the tomb or appearing and disappearing from the Upper Room, or passing through the throng who sought to take Him and stone Him, His appearances inthe Old Testament.

80 posted on 03/16/2015 4:10:45 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson