Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Big Think: How reality is shaped by the speed of light

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Adam Frank writes:

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • When you look at a picture of a galaxy that is 75 million light-years away, you are seeing that galaxy at a time when dinosaurs ruled the Earth. 
  • Distance translates into time because the speed of light is finite.  
  • What you perceive as “now” is really layer after layer of light reaching your eye from many different moments in the past.
time
Credit: LeArchitecto / Adobe Stock

Light from the time of the dinosaurs

When you look at a picture of a galaxy that is 75 million light-years away, you are not seeing it as it is right now, but as it was when that light you are seeing left it 75 million years ago. That means you are seeing that galaxy at a time when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, and you were nothing but a dream in the tiny mind of the tiny mammals that existed back then.

[Or, to override the materialistic worldview of the author, we could say that 75 million years ago, we were nothing but a dream in the vast mind of God, who has existed from all eternity.]

I think everyone is familiar with this idea, and it is mind-blowing enough that everyone is happy to explore it again each time an image of a distant galaxy is released. Distance translates into time because the speed of light is finite. Therefore it always takes some time for light to cross the distance between a galaxy and your eye. A galaxy 75 million light-years away has had 75 million years to evolve since that light left and may no longer look like what we see in the image. That is incredible. (Actually, 75 million years is not enough time for galaxies to evolve much. Galaxies 10 billion light years distant are, however, another story).

So yes, everyone loves this idea. But here is the thing. You don’t need objects to be billions, millions, thousands, or even one single light year away to experience how distance translates into time. It is a constant part of your life. You are trapped in time.

False simultaneity

Consider an object sitting two meters away from you. Look up now, find one, and focus your eyes on it. Let’s say it’s a chair. Because the speed of light is 2.99 x 108 meters per second, the light your eye is detecting left that chair exactly 660 picoseconds ago. A picosecond is one trillionth of a second, and while I will grant that 660 trillionths of a second ago is pretty recent, it is still in the past. You are not seeing that chair as it is now, you are seeing it as it was. The same is true for everything else your eye detects. You never ever see the world as it is.

[Sorry to have to correct his math, but if the object is two meters from your eyes, you would be seeing it about 6700 picoseconds in the past, not 660 picoseconds.

The author continues, and raises some interesting questions.]

What you perceive as the “now” is really layer after layer of light reaching your eye from many different moments in the past. Your “now” is an overlapping mosaic of “thens.” What you imagine to be the real world existing simultaneously with you is really a patchwork of moments from different pasts. You never live in the world as it is. You only experience it as it was, a tapestry of past vintages. 

Chairs, tables, houses, the moon, the stars, and the Milky Way. They are all living in different pasts, but when you stand in their assembled midst, they make up this fleeting moment of your life. How could something so real be built from such a potent illusion?

Full article at Big Think.

If we could imagine moving at the speed of light (which is not actually possible for material objects), we would be decoupled from the time experienced in this physical universe. All events in the physical universe would seem to us to be happening simultaneously–we would effectively be outside of time. Perhaps light is more fundamental than space, and the only reason we are “trapped in time” is that we have been rotated into a spatial-temporal reality in which light is only ever a fleeting visitor.

Comments
Relatd @65, Did you get my explanation? -QQuerius
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Relatd @65,
Thanks for the attempt. If you look at Einstein’s equation, how do you get that you can’t travel faster than light?
The m in E = mc^2 is relativistic mass for which the formula is m(rel) = m(rest)/sqrt(1 - v^2 /c^2). If you increase the velocity of something until it reaches c, then the relativistic mass becomes m(rel) = m(rest)/sqrt(1-1/1) = m(rest)/sqrt(0). Dividing is undefined, and when approaching 0 as the denominator, it results in the relativistic mass approaching infinity. It's not possible to accelerate an infinite mass. If magic happens and you find an object travelling faster than the speed of light, the denominator of the equation would be negative and the relativistic mass and energy would then be imaginary numbers. -QQuerius
November 19, 2022
November
11
Nov
19
19
2022
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Viola Lee/61
No. Reading back over those posts I think Sev has some misunderstandings.
I make no claim to infallibility - unlike some - what am I misunderstanding?Seversky
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Querius, Thanks for the attempt. If you look at Einstein's equation, how do you get that you can't travel faster than light? For those younger than 60, the idea of a sound barrier might sound ridiculous. It was thought that nothing could move faster than sound or 10,000 feet per second. And survive. Especially a manned aircraft. At Physics World, the whole 'faster than light barrier' idea is being looked at differently. https://physicsworld.com/a/spacecraft-in-a-warp-bubble-could-travel-faster-than-light-claims-physicist/ It should be obvious to anyone: There is no way to reach the nearest star. None. But by doing the work, making proposals, and eventually, experiments, this barrier will be broken. Otherwise, humanity will always remain in the present solar system.relatd
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
In defense of Relatd, I'd say that, while Einstein's mass-energy equation and "relativistic mass" and time equations have been experimentally verified. However, its interpretation has been challenging and one can be easily fooled into false statements as a result, not to mention that it's currently incompatible with quantum mechanics. For example, here's the iconic experiment validating time dilation: https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/07/15/time-traveling_on_an_airplane_one_of_the_cheapest_tests_of_relativity_785017.html Let me strongly recommend the following article, which describes the experimental history of relativistic dynamics: https://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/relativistic_mass.html Yes, it was Galileo! And yes, I learned something new! (smile) -QQuerius
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Relatd: Baloney. Incredible. You frequently ask for 'real science', experimental, observable, empirical science. And when it's given to you but disagrees with your (incorrect and ignorant) views you just dismiss it. I tell you what, why don't you get a few kilograms of plutonium and check out some of the work yourself. Just let me know ahead of time so I can be well away.JVL
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT
Viola Lee @61, I'm happy to agree. And that was the purpose of my thought experiment. -QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
No. Reading back over those posts I think Sev has some misunderstandings. Not nearly as many as relatd, though.Viola Lee
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Viola Lee @59, So you agree with Seversky's description @16? -QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
Didn't think about it. Not related to the discussion about the inability of a particle to be accelerated to the speed of light, or about the truth of E=mc^2. Maybe you'd like to explain some of this to realtd , or just tell him he's wrong (BA pointed out he was wrong about Cherenkov radiation), or perhaps just point him to some youtube videos. Also, I don't think you are using ad hominem correctly.Viola Lee
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Viola Lee, Ignoring your ad hominems, did you come to a conclusion on my thought experiment? Do large objects radiate energy as they are slowed from relativistic velocities? -QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
VL at 56, Baloney.relatd
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
E = mc^2 has been verified: it is the key equation which makes nuclear power possible. Here's a link of the derivation: Link. You might also read here. The fact that you think such an important equation, central to many aspects of physics, is "stupid" and has not been experimentally verified says a great deal about you, but not about the equation. No sense is my saying any more.Viola Lee
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Don't worry, Q. I don't expect you to explain anything to me. Of course, I therefore really have no idea what, or how much, you understand. Maybe lots more than me, and maybe not. Over and out with you, I think.Viola Lee
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
VL at 53, It's a stupid equation. There can be no experimental verification.relatd
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Relatd: E = mc^2 is c squared (times itself), not doubled. And yes, you could throw a ball to the other car. I think I've concluded that you know very little about physics, so I won't bother to explain any more. But it takes a lot of something to declare that E = mc^2 is a stupid equation!Viola Lee
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Viola Lee @ 38,
Of course I know the role played by the sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2) factor in the equations. Don’t know what point you were trying to make when you wrote, “Great! So then you know where gamma is involved in Einstein’s famous equation.”
Oh, then you obviously don’t understand how gamma works in conjunction with mass and energy. No, I won’t explain it to you. Did you come to a conclusion on my thought experiment? Do large objects radiate energy as they are slowed from relativistic velocities? -QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 @40, Thanks for the video link. I noticed that Dawkins was nodding in agreement through the Weinberg’s observations (https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495). In college, I once listened to a conversation between two physics professors, one of whom expressed curiosity at how the laws of physics are actually derived and the source of the constants being used. Mathematical systems don’t determine physics, they are intelligently chosen to approximate what’s observed. So, is there a single mathematical system that perfectly describes the operation of the universe? According to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, the answer might actually be no. And there’s no way we can determine whether we are even capable of understanding such a mathematical system or systems. Personally, I prefer the amazing and brilliant statement from 2,000 years ago . . .
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it.
In answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing in existence?” it indicates that the Logos has personal consciousness that manifests our experienced reality! I'm sure the scientists you referenced studied science with respect and reverence. -QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
VL at 48, What? If I am in a car going 100 MPH and another car going 100 MPH pulls up alongside, I can throw a ball to the other car (assuming zero wind) just like it was not moving at all.relatd
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Querius at 35, Really? Let's look at Einstein's equation, E=MC2. What does it tell you? Energy EQUALS Matter traveling at twice the speed of light. So, if you could accelerate matter to twice the speed of light, it would turn into energy? What a stupid equation. I mean people just assume that nothing can travel faster than light but if we could accelerate the chair you're sitting on to twice the speed of light, it would turn into energy? What was he thinking?relatd
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Ooops. I need to read more carefully. Here are some corrections, in bold: Back to the speed of light: the most significant thing is not that it is a speed that cannot be exceeded by any particle, but that it is constant for all observers irrespective of their relative speeds. If I am going 100 mph in a boxcar and throw a baseball forward to 100 mph, the ball appears to be going 200 mph to an observer on the ground although it it just appears to be going 100 mph in respect to the boxcar. However, if the hypothetical boxcar is travelling at the speed of light and one throws the baseball at the speed of light, both the observer on the ground and the one in the boxcar will see the baseball travelling at the speed of light. The observer on the ground will not see the baseball travelling at twice the speed of light in respect to the ground. Both will see the baseball travelling at the speed of light.Viola Lee
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
to relatd: Back to the speed of light: the most significant things is not that it is a speed that cannot be exceeded by any particle, but that it is constant for all observers irrespective of their relative speeds. If I am going 100 mph in a boxcar and throw a baseball forward to 100 mph, the ball appears to be going 200 mph to an observer on the ground although it it just appears to be going 100 mph in respect to the ground. However, if the hypothetical boxcar is travelling at the speed of light and throws the baseball at the speed of light, both the observer on the ground and the one in the boxcar will see the baseball travelling at the speed of light. The observer will not see the baseball travelling at twice the speed of light in respect to the ground. Both will see the baseball travelling at the speed of light.Viola Lee
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Thanks, BA. That type of focused response is better.Viola Lee
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
VL, I did not want to step any further into this thread. And I thought that you and others have been doing a good job on correcting Relatd and JVL. in their mistakes thus far. For instance, I liked very much when you corrected JVL thusly, "JVL, Christians do believe math is discovered not invented. And yes, Christians would believe God would know all those numbers. That is pretty orthodox theological philosophy of math." Yet when Sev asked, "Does the theological philosophy of math hold that God discovered math or that he invented it?" And you responded thusly, with a smiley face, "a difficult question for theologians!" :) ,,,I saw the necessity to step back into the thread to clear up any misconceptions you created. You falsely claimed that I am 'derailing discussions', but alas, I only stepped in to clear up any unnecessary confusion that you yourself, willingly or not, created when you said that whether God invents math or discovers math, with a smiley face no less, is "a difficult question for theologians!" :) Although the answer to that question is a bit technical to understand, it is a question that, none-the-less, (since it has been mulled over for centuries by Christian theologians), not really all that 'difficult' for Theologians to answer. For instance, I think Edward Feser, (in an articled entitled "Keep It Simple" no less), does a fine job of answering that question.
Keep it Simple – Edward Feser – 2020 Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.,,, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”
bornagain77
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Yes, but your long posts derail discussions others are having, and I seriously doubt anyone is reading them so your repetition is not effective.Viola Lee
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
The Rules of Life - Rule Four – "The lesson is repeated until learned,,"
The Rules Of Life Category - people Rule One – You will receive a body.,,, Rule Two – You will be presented with lessons.,,, Rule Three – There are no mistakes, only lessons.,,, Rule Four – The lesson is repeated until learned.,,, https://www.gettheedgeuk.co.uk/the-rules-of-life/
bornagain77
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Nothing like a few thousands recycled words from BA in the morning to keep a discussion on track! :-)Viola Lee
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
And since Newton also held to the orthodox Christian belief that man is made in the image of God,,,
Priest of Nature – the religious worlds of Isaac Newton – R. Iliffe (Princeton University Press, 2017) Excerpt page 5: “The analogy between the human and the divine would remain at the heart of Newtons theological metaphysics. In the essay on God, space, and time that he penned in the early 1690s, the analogy between man and God played a key role. Was it not most agreeable to reason, he asked, that Gods creatures shared his attributes as far as possible as fruit the nature of the tree, and an image the likeness of a man, and by sharing tend towards perfection? Similarly, was it not reasonable to believe that God could be discerned in the more perfect creatures as in a mirror? Such a view also enabled humans to understand the being and attributes of the divine.” https://www.yoono.org/download/prinat.pdf
,,, and since Newton also held to the orthodox Christian belief that man is made 'in the image of God', (and since he explicitly rejected the mechanical and/or necessitarian philosophy), then I hold that Newton would be very pleased, if he were around today, to see the recent closing of the “freedom of choice” loophole within quantum mechanics.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
December 2021 – When scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-time-for-american-thanksgiving-stephen-meyer-on-the-frailty-of-scientific-atheism/#comment-741600 The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE
Verses:
Matthew 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
In fact, via Gregory Chaitin's extension of Godel's incompleteness, we now know that “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”
The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Reason_Chaitin_2006.pdf
As should be obvious, this presents an irresolvable dilemma for atheists who hope to construct a single mathematical description of the universe that makes no reference to God. As even the late Steven Weinberg, an atheist, himself honestly admitted, “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in.,,, we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?”
“I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495
The only way out of this dilemma is, as Bruce Gordon explains, (and as was previously mentioned), “a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” And it is not as if we do not already have very good reasons to believe that the infinite Mind of God must be behind ‘choosing’ among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bringing into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them.” We already know that 'free will' is involved in human mathematicians themselves creating new mathematical axioms. As David Robertson has shown, the “famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.,,,”
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.,,, The basic problem concerning the relation between AIT and free will can be stated succinctly: Since the theorems of mathematics cannot contain more information than is contained in the axioms used to derive those theorems, it follows that no formal operation in mathematics (and equivalently, no operation performed by a computer) can create new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf
Moreover, the free will of God, via the Judeo-Christian presupposition of the contingency of the universe, played an essential role in the founding of modern science. As Stephen Meyer explains contingency was the essential Judeo-Christian presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science “that nature has an order that is built into it. But it is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator.”
“That (contingency) was a huge concept (that was important for the founding of modern science). The historians of science call that ‘contingency’. The idea that nature has an order that is built into it. But it is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator. It could have been otherwise. Just as there are many ways to make a timepiece, or a clock,,, there are many different ways God could have ordered the universe. And it is up to us not to deduce that order from first principles, or from some intuitions that we have about how nature ought to be, but rather it is important to go out and see how nature actually is.” – Stephen Meyer – 5:00 minute mark – Andrew Klavan and Stephen Meyer Talk God and Science https://idthefuture.com/1530/
And as Sir Isaac Newton himself, (the father of modern physics), stated, ‘Without all doubt this world…could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God.... From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed,"
‘Without all doubt this world…could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God… From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed, in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experiments.”,,, – Sir Isaac Newton – (Cited from Religion and the Rise of Modern Science by Hooykaas page 49). https://thirdspace.org.au/comment/237
Moreover, “Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of,,”
“Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy – (Davis, 1991) Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science,,, Newton’s voluntarist conception of God had three major consequences for his natural philosophy. First, it led him to reject Descartes’ version of the mechanical philosophy, in which matter was logically equated with extension, in favor of the belief that the properties of matter were freely determined by an omnipresent God, who remained free to move the particles of matter according to God’s will. Second, Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of, such as causing parts of matter to attract one another at a distance. Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do. http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm
In other words, not only did Newton hold that God, via his free will, created this universe, but Newton also held that God, via his free will, continually sustains this universe in its existence. (i.e. the universe is 'contingent' on the will of God for its continual existence)bornagain77
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
JVL: "I guess if God already knew about all those then Christians should believe that mathematics is discovered not invented." JVL, first off it is important to note, although mathematics is indispensable for modern science, that Darwinists themselves have no mathematical model to establish their theory as being a 'hard science'.
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
Secondly, with their reductive materialistic framework, Darwinists also have no realistic clue why 'immaterial' mathematics should even exist, (much less do they have any realistic clue why 'immaterial' mathematics, which are indispensable for modern science, should be applicable to the universe).
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Thus Darwinists, who are wedded to the framework of reductive materialism, (and who claim, (without any evidence mind you), that consciousness and/or the immaterial mind, is 'emergent' from some material basis), are forced to deny the objective reality of this transcendent, 'immaterial', realm of mathematics that our immaterial minds are able to grasp. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the objective reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview. But be that as it may, the Christian Theist holds that God, who is omniscient, i.e. infinite in knowledge, already knows all math that can possibly be known, and that God chose, out of that infinitude of mathematical possibilities, "among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions" and brought "into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.”
Bruce Gordon: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
In short, the Christian Theist holds that, via Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, that any mathematics that might describe this universe “are God’s thoughts”,
Keep it Simple – Edward Feser – 2020 Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple (Also see Einstein and Wigner on the 'miraculous' applicability of mathematics to the universe)
Although Darwinian materialists, and/or Darwinian atheists, have no clue why 'immaterial' mathematics should even exist, much less why it should be 'miraculously' applicable to the universe, (and/or how the supposedly purely material mind of man is even capable of grasping this immaterial realm of mathematics), many atheists will claim, (with their philosophical feet planted firmly in mid-air), that mathematics exists completely independent of God's Mind in some 'platonic realm'. Which is to say that many atheists hold that they don't need God in order to explain the existence of mathematics, and that mathematics has a 'necessary' existence, not a 'contingent' existence that is dependent on the Mind of God. Yet Godel falsified that 'Platonic', i.e. 'necessary existence', belief that atheists have for mathematics. Godel’s incompleteness theorems proves that mathematics has a ‘contingent’, i.e. dependent, existence, and that it does not have a ‘necessary’, i.e. self sufficient, existence as is erroneously presupposed by most contemporary theoretical physicists today. As the following article states, "Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous."
Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity ... all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency ... no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness ... all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation# “There is a hole at the bottom of math” (Godel’s incompleteness theorems) This is Math’s Fatal Flaw – 2021 video – 27:16 minute mark https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo?t=1636
And as David Goldman put it, ‘we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable,,, Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.”
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010 The religious beliefs that guided Kurt Gödel’s revolutionary ideas Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
bornagain77
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply