Does physics deconstruct our sense of time?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 20, 2018

Cosmology, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Andrew Jaffe at Nature, reviewing Carlo Rovelli’s The Order of Time:

According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton’s picture of a universally ticking clock. Even Albert Einstein’s relativistic space-time — an elastic manifold that contorts so that local times differ depending on one’s relative speed or proximity to a mass — is just an effective simplification.

…

Rovelli is one of the creators and champions of loop quantum gravity theory, one of several ongoing attempts to marry quantum mechanics with general relativity. In contrast to the better-known string theory, loop quantum gravity does not attempt to be a ‘theory of everything’ out of which we can generate all of particle physics and gravitation. Nevertheless, its agenda of joining up these two fundamentally differing laws is incredibly ambitious.

Alongside and inspired by his work in quantum gravity, Rovelli puts forward the idea of ‘physics without time’. … More.

If time is an illusion, is space an illusion too? Then what is not an illusion? What does “illusion” mean?

See also: Carlo Rovelli: Theories of everything ill-conceived but we can learn to understand quantum mechanics

Comments

EDTA,
You cite a very interesting paper there. Must have been a joy to read.
Actually, I think that it is an absurd paper. I just posted it to juxtapose against BA77’s absurd claims that atheists are mentally ill and that their personhood is just an illusion. I figured that if it was rational and logical to claim that I am mentally ill because it was written in a paper, then it is equally rational and logical to claim that he is schizophrenic because it was written in a paper.Allan Keith_{April 21, 2018
April
04
Apr
21
21
2018
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Allan:
So you justify demeaning all atheists because a few atheists demeaned Christians?
Most, if not all, atheists demean Christians, including you. By your own sock puppet's words you are just here to poke Christians and those who disagree with you. You are a sad case of humanityET_{April 21, 2018
April
04
Apr
21
21
2018
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

AK @ 12, You cite a very interesting paper there. Must have been a joy to read. Only a few issues with it: 1. Patently silly quote: "Christian duty now prescribed for all a rigorous self-examination ever deeper; one had to reject the compromised past, but in doing that one inevitably doubted one’s earlier perceptions and memory as having been suspect (though once tacit) and fundamentally misconceived or false." Nothing about Christianity says that we have to doubt our earlier perceptions and memory, just our understandings of some things. Those are not even close to the same thing. 2. Quote mining historical Christian writers at their most hyperbolic much? Do the authors of the paper not realize that most Christians do not live their lives with those sorts of thoughts ever-present? The theologians and preachers he quotes were trying to make points as strongly as they could. Most Christians are far more down-to-earth in how their thought lives are organized. But nice quote-mining job there. 3. Confusing correlation with causation: Could it not be possible that someone who feels their mind slipping away would be drawn to religion? After all, mankind hasn't been able to help them. 4. I'm sure Wikipedia is totally off-base when it says, "The causes of schizophrenia include environmental and genetic factors. Possible environmental factors include being raised in a city, cannabis use during adolescence, certain infections, parental age and poor nutrition during pregnancy. Genetic factors include a variety of common and rare genetic variants... During diagnosis a person's culture must also be taken into account. As of 2013 there is no objective test." The authors of the linked paper seem blissfully unaware of these basic, accepted facts about schizophrenia. Fascinating melange of confused thinking. I shall have to read it again, and give it a good thrashing at my blog. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.EDTA_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

BS77,
AK, historically atheists are notorious for trying to label Christians as delusional. Even Sigmund Freud himself, whose views of psychiatry are now widely derided as pseudoscience, claimed belief in God was delusional.
Hmm. So you justify demeaning all atheists because a few atheists demeaned Christians? What would Christianity be if all women viewed the witch trials as indicative of all Christianity? Or if all muslims based their view of Christianity on the crusades. Or if all indigenous Canadians based their view of Christianity on the residential schools. Thankfully, most of society is far more open minded than you.Allan Keith_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

AK, historically atheists are notorious for trying to label Christians as delusional. Even Sigmund Freud himself, whose views of psychiatry are now widely derided as pseudoscience, claimed belief in God was delusional.
Is Faith Delusion? - Professor Andrew Sims In English law, delusion has been the cardinal feature of insanity for the last 200 years,,, Sigmund Freud in 'Moses and Monotheism’ stated that belief in a single God is delusional https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Is%20Faith%20Delusion%20Andrew%20Sims%20EDITEDx.pdf
Richard Dawkins wrote a book whose title "The God Delusion" implied that he held all believers were mentally ill. But the fact of the matter is that when we get into the details and look at the scientific evidence itself, and ask which group, believers or unbelievers, suffer more from mental and physical illnesses, it is found that atheists, hands down, suffer more than believers do:
Are Religious People Happier Than Atheists? - 2000 Excerpt: there does indeed appear to be a link between religion and happiness. Several studies have been done, but to give an example, one study found that the more frequently people attended religious events, the happier they were; 47% of people who attended several types a week reported that they were ‘very happy’, as opposed to 28% who attended less than monthly. In practical terms, religious people have the upper hand on atheists in several other areas. They drink and smoke less, are less likely to abuse drugs, and they stay married longer. After a stressful event like bereavement, unemployment, or illness, those who worship don’t take it as hard and recover faster. All of the above are likely to be beneficial to a person’s happiness. Additionally, religious people, as a result of their beliefs, have a greater sense of meaning, purpose and hope in their lives. http://generallythinking.com/are-religious-people-happier-than-atheists/ Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes - June 1, 2017 Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the "Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults" study May 16. "For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year," Bruce said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/ Of snakebites and suicide - February 18, 2014 RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/of-snakebites-and-suicide/ “I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false Is Christianity Evil? (Mental Benefits of Christianity - Meta-analysis, 8:24 minute mark) - 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dgESPmh-TxY#t=504 Christians respond better to psychiatric treatment than atheists: - July 21, 2013 Excerpt: “Our work suggests that people with a moderate to high level of belief in a higher power do significantly better in short-term psychiatric treatment than those without, regardless of their religious affiliation. Belief was associated with not only improved psychological well-being, but decreases in depression and intention to self-harm,” explained Rosmarin. The study looked at 159 patients, recruited over a one-year period. Each participant was asked to gauge their belief in God as well as their expectations for treatment outcome and emotion regulation, each on a five-point scale. Levels of depression, well being, and self-harm were assessed at the beginning and end of their treatment program. https://uncommondescent.com/religion/if-religious-believers-are-crazy/ Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic - June 9, 2016 Excerpt: A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong. The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism. “The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction. “The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”,,, The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame. “I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.”,,, professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.” “The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said. http://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/
Studies also now establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their design inference! (i.e. atheists are 'living in denial', i.e. those who refuse to face reality as it really is. And indeed "denialism" is a mental illness.
Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
And again, none of this should be surprising, delusion and illusion are literally woven throughout the entire framework of Atheistic materialism To repeat:
Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, (and apparently antagonistic to mental and physical health also), than Atheistic Materialism has turned out to be Verses:
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
bornagain77_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Origenes,
So, you listen (passively) to what a voice in your head is telling you. Is the voice sometimes angry and commanding? How long has this been going on?
Ask BA77. The voice in my head, and presumably yours, is our counscious “inner voice”. Or don’t you have one? I’m just referring to the article that concludes that schizophrenia is a Christian illness. I don’t know if you are Christian, but with an avatar of Bornagain77, I can only assume that BA77 is. My only question of BA77 is, is this the 77th time that he was born again (full marks for persistence) or does it refer to the year that he accepted Christ and schizophrenia?Allan Keith_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

AK: We all listen to the voice in our heads (our conscious self).
Please, speak for yourself. So, you listen (passively) to what a voice in your head is telling you. Is the voice sometimes angry and commanding? How long has this been going on?Origenes_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Origenes,
Let’s say, arguendo, that Allan Keith’s world view is correct and that consciousness is an illusion, then what is mental illness?
We only have a szchitsophrenic’s claim that an atheist’s consciousness is an illusion. In spite of evidence to the contrary. We all listen to the voice in our heads (our conscious self). But someone here is listening to multiple voices in his head.Allan Keith_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Let's say, arguendo, that Allan Keith's world view is correct and that consciousness is an illusion, then what is mental illness?Origenes_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

This might explain BS77:
Six novel aspects of Christianity may be significant for the emergence of schizophrenia—an omniscient deity, a decontexualised self, ambiguous agency, a downplaying of immediate sensory data, and a scrutiny of the self and its reconstitution in conversion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4107833/
Allan Keith_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

jdk again as to this claim you made,
This doesn’t mean that what we an experience is an illusion,
Given Darwinism, even if you yourself were not a 'neuronal illusion', EVERYTHING you perceive would still be an illusion. ,,, "We assume the 'predicates' of perceptions — space, time, physical objects, shapes — are the right ones to describe physical reality. And this theorem says that [such] predicates are [the wrong ones] almost surely." In other words, evolution could care less if you perceive objective reality. It only wants you to have sex successfully.,,,
What If Evolution Bred Reality Out Of Us? - September 6, 2016 Excerpt: Fundamentally, Hoffman argues, evolution and reality (the objective kind) have almost nothing to do with each other.,,, "Given an arbitrary world and arbitrary fitness functions, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but that is just tuned to fitness.",,, So imagine you have two kinds of creatures living in an environment. The first is tuned to respond directly to objective reality — the actual independent reality out there. The other creature has behavior only tuned to its, and the environment's, fitness function. The second creature could care less about what's really going on in reality. What Hoffman's theorem says is the fitness-tuned critter will — almost always — win the evolution game.,,, "We assume the 'predicates' of perceptions — space, time, physical objects, shapes — are the right ones to describe physical reality. And this theorem says that [such] predicates are [the wrong ones] almost surely." In other words, evolution could care less if you perceive objective reality. It only wants you to have sex successfully.,,, http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/09/06/492779594/what-if-evolution-bred-reality-out-of-us Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/ The Interface Theory of Perception - 2015 Donald D. Hoffman & Manish Singh & Chetan Prakash http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~jec7/pcd%202015-16%20pubs/interface.pdf http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-manish-singh/papers/Probing_ITP_2015_PBR.pdf (follow-up discussion) The Case Against Reality - May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,, First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true. Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth). http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/05/the-case-against-reality/
And again, I would hardly trust what a neuronal illusion, who is having illusory perceptions of reality, has to say about reality. By definition, illusions misrepresent the true nature of reality and are not to be trusted.bornagain77_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

jdk,
ba, your post has nothing to do with my comment, as far as I can tell.
Yet, you in fact made this comment:
This doesn’t mean that what we an experience is an illusion, I don’t think, any more than a table is an illusion even though a description of it in terms of elemental particles and forces is extremely different.
And I merely responded that,,,
I hardly consider it a worthwhile endeavor to take advice, on what is real and on what is illusory, from anyone who is not even sure whether they themselves really exist as a real person (or whether they are a illusion).
To put it as simply as I can for you jdk since you, sadly, suffer from the mental disease of atheism/panpsychism,,, if you can't even figure out that you ARE NOT an illusion, then there is scant hope for you EVER discerning what else is real and what else is illusory in reality.bornagain77_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Allan:
Maybe there are some people who dislike you because you have these character flaws, but I don’t.
None that I know of. But I do know that applies to all evolutionists and materialists. And life is too short to let them get away with it- especially when lives are at stake.ET_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

ET,
What kind of person wouldn’t dislike those who go through life lying, BSing and trying to pass it all off as knowledge and indoctrinate kids with it?
Maybe there are some people who dislike you because you have these character flaws, but I don't. Life is too short for that.Allan Keith_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Allan:
I wonder what sort of pathology is involved in people who have an obsessive hatred of anyone who claims to be an atheist or a meterialist?
It's all of the lying and BS that goes with it. What kind of person wouldn't dislike those who go through life lying, BSing and trying to pass it all off as knowledge and indoctrinate kids with it?ET_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

BS77,
jdk, and exactly why should anyone trust an atheistic materialist and/or panpsychist (when the mood strikes him to invoke panpsychism) when both worldviews hold that ‘self’ is an illusion?
I wonder what sort of pathology is involved in people who have an obsessive hatred of anyone who claims to be an atheist or a meterialist? It must be a sad existence to judge everyone's worth based on their world view and belief system (or lack of). Even without resorting to relativity, our own experiences suggest that there is an illusory aspect about time. When we are young, time seems to go much slower than it does as we get older. When our adrenaline is pumping, time appears to go slower. Our time sense in dreams is very different than it is when we are awake.Allan Keith_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

ba, your post has nothing to do with my comment, as far as I can tell. We dropped the other topics on the other threads.jdk_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

jdk, and exactly why should anyone trust an atheistic materialist and/or panpsychist (when the mood strikes him to invoke panpsychism) when both worldviews hold that 'self' is an illusion?
jdk April 18, 2018 at 10:46 am "Buddhists and Hindus believe the self is an illusion and that recognizing that is a key to enlightenment." Is the Human Mind material or immaterial? (April 2018) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experts-slam-eu-proposal-to-grant-personhood-to-intelligent-machines/#comment-656715 To further drive the point home that the entire concept of ‘personhood’ will forever be beyond the scope of reductive materialistic explanations, it is good to remember Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.,,, (April 2018) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/aw-faceboook-quit-blaming-ai-for-your-goofs-and-shady-practices/#comment-656536
I hardly consider it a worthwhile endeavor to take advice, on what is real and on what is illusory, from anyone who is not even sure whether they themselves really exist as a real person. To repeat:
Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/#comment-655355
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic Materialism has turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; Matthew 7:24-27 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” I AM THEY - My Feet Are on the Rock (Song) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4oM6DbMQRo
bornagain77_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Time and space at the elemental level are different than time and space at the macro level that we experience it. This doesn't mean that what we an experience is an illusion, I don't think, any more than a table is an illusion even though a description of it in terms of elemental particles and forces is extremely different.jdk_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

You don't need nonsensical word salad like "quantum loop gravity" or whatever. A literal gedankenexperiment proves that our internal representation of time is not synced to clock ticks. When an external noise like a door knock or a snapping mousetrap enters the ears during REM sleep, the dream-scripter constructs a scene that starts BEFORE the intrusive noise, so the noise comes after an event that is meant to "explain" it.polistra_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

Of related note: "The Now of the mind", much to the consternation of Einstein, has now been shown to be very much a part of experimental physics, particularly quantum physics,,,
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
,,, and Einstein's 4-dimensional space-time, though still very important for understanding the overall structure of reality, is relegated to pretty much a secondary role to quantum mechanics in so as far as understanding the primary basis of reality:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
bornagain77_{April 20, 2018
April
04
Apr
20
20
2018
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply