Meanwhile, 100 million light yrs from home

[deicer]

I kind of believe that space is infinite and with that, the possible combinations of matter to form are also infinite. To my way of thinking that would mean that each planet/body/moon is unique.

For a form of matter in terms of a planet or life to not be unique, to be reproduced or be similar to another, elsewhere in an infinite space would then mean that there are multiples of that particular matter combination and therefore only a limited number of combinations for matter to form.

I also kind of wonder that if life as we know it in terms of chemical and biological processes only exists on a planet for an infinitessimally small period of time in a planet's lifecycle, doesn't that even further lessen our chances of ever finding life out there?

It's time to start lining up monkeys in front of typewriters.....

[Kip Powick]

If you ever have a hard time going to sleep...just ponder this..

If there was no planets that we know, including earth, no universe, no stars, no galaxies that we could ever see...try to vizualize what would it all look like from out "there".

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[boestar]

ponder this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss

[DEFCON]

Mitch

You enquire; “I'm totaly unfamiliar with whatever that could mean... Can you explain?”

In the post you’ve questioned, I said; “God advised Abraham; "I always was, and always will be".”

I went on to emphasize; “Always was”. The concept of not having a start point has I believe, remained an enigma for mankind.

I offered a modern interpretation; “Science offers mathematical modeling, which resolves the conundrum above. It’s known as the "Spacetime Continuum”.

In an earlier thread I also commented regarding the similarities of stories from the Biblical text, “Genesis” & the general concept of the “Big Bang Theory”.

I hope the above clarifies the matter for you.

[DEFCON]

I give Mitch...you're being an "Naughty Word"!!

[Canus Chinookus]

I could find meaning in anything if I really wanted to. Especially the book of Genesis, doesn't mean much to me. I could find similarities to Dr Suess stories to if I really tried.

[DEFCON]

Mitch

“I first objected to your portrayal of science as an "uncertain mystery" and when I challenged you on that you suddenly claimed to be something of an amateur physicist... Telling me you know all about string theory and how it renders my keyboard nothing more than a belief.... I tried to find validity in that, but couldn't... and you never did explain.”

To correct another of your assertions; I did not claim to be a physicist of any kind. I described myself as a “hobbyist”. There is a big difference!

Would you be willing to provide the “reference” to support your claim that I told you that I “know all about string theory”?

Here are the facts. I’ve always enjoyed all things physics. When the discussion came up in the thread, I was interested. After my initial post regarding “String Theory” I went on to undertake some remedial reading. I learned the subject had evolved since I had last given it any consideration, producing something new, “Brane Theory”.

Regardless, my understanding of theory remains; perception through self awareness would be the creator of “your” personal reality. As in the case of your “keyboard”, “everything” might be considered the product of “nothing” but “energy”.

Why the constant attack?

[GDR]

Actually there is an interesting connection, IMHO, between Genesis and modern science.

1/Genesis contended that there was a beginning, or a point when "Time = Zero".

2/Genesis also tells us that the universe, and more specifically the Earth, wasn't created instantly but that it evolved over time into it's current condition.

3/Genesis has the animals inhabiting our planet before the arrival of mankind.

All in all, I have to agree that there is a very interesting parallel between the Genesis account and modern science.

[Moon The Loon]

God advised Abraham; "I always was, and always will be".

Says who?

Just a question

[Moon The Loon]

If you ever have a hard time going to sleep...just ponder this..

If there was no planets that we know, including earth, no universe, no stars, no galaxies that we could ever see...try to vizualize what would it all look like from out "there".

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Or in the words of Carl, "What a waste of space."

[Moon The Loon]

All in all, I have to agree that there is a very interesting parallel between the Genesis account and modern science.

Hey Greg: I would dispute your reference to "modern science" only because I disagree with the views of "modern science" in that I THINK you are referring to the "modern science" of the Big Bang...before which, there was nothing but pure energy in the "universe".

Correct me if I've misinterpreted your thoughts.

To me, "modern science" denies any beginning in favour of the "always was" scenario. Wrapping one's mind around infinity is always a stretch. This has been a decades-long difficulty I've had with "modern science", that which tries to define Infinity in finite terms.

[GDR]

Hey Greg: I would dispute your reference to "modern science" only because I disagree with the views of "modern science" in that I THINK you are referring to the "modern science" of the Big Bang...before which, there was nothing but pure energy in the "universe".

Correct me if I've misinterpreted your thoughts.

To me, "modern science" denies any beginning in favour of the "always was" scenario. Wrapping one's mind around infinity is always a stretch. This has been a decades-long difficulty I've had with "modern science", that which tries to define Infinity in finite terms.

Hi Moon

There is disagreement as to what there was, if anything, before the singularity that expanded to become the universe. (The Big Bang). I assume you are referring to the theory that the universe infinitely collapses and expands.

The Big Bounce

Even if this is correct there still would have been a point at the beginning of another expansionary cycle when the clock would be at zero. (T=0)

Greg

[Moon The Loon]

Hey Greg: I actually got tongue-tied with my last post:

"To me, "modern science" denies any beginning in favour of the "always was" scenario. Wrapping one's mind around infinity is always a stretch."

I meant just the opposite - denies the "always was" in favour of an actual beginning.

A lot of modern cosmologists are coming around to a way of thinking that I've had for decades: our cosmos, our universe, our whatever, may very well have come about from a "big bang". However, if you think like I do, there are many, many such "universes", all interacting with each other much like the bubbles in a boiling pot of water. Why can't we see these other universes? Well, we have enough trouble seeing the edge of our own. If there is as much space between them as I would imagine, this would further limit our ability to observe them.

Just an opinion!

[Mitch Cronin]

Greg... Some of what's in Genesis (and I know little of it) may seem to agree with our understanding of science's explanation of the genesis of our world, but aren't there some stark contrasts as well? (I just grabbed the Good Book for reference )

Here's a for instance... Genesis says "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: and he made the stars also." [italics as in this Bible]

Obviously that'll be the sun and the moon... equally obvious, I think, is the absolute lack of any astronomy-like science understood by the author. (or, of course, anyone else in his time.)

We know the moon to be no light at all, of course... and the sun is only a star itself... and the concept of night and day only apply locally and not at all in space...

It's exactly that sort of thing that prevents me from accepting any more of what's written in this book... That was on page one. I can't read any further without knowing it's no word of an all knowing God at all. It's written by men of earth. Men who had no way to know the smaller light was not a light, and the larger light was the same as billions of billions of others, or that there were other galaxies full of those same things out beyond their imagination...

But it's undoubtedly a good history book.

...no disrespect at all intended. I offer my opinion, that's all. ...but you knew that.

[DEFCON]

Mitch

I reviewed the earlier thread and feel the need to add a couple of points.

“Firstly I think you're full of malarky. I don't think "all models" "break down and become unreliable when pushed to a final conclusion" at all.... but I don't know...

..and secondly, I think the point that you're trying to baffle me with nonsense about string theory and particle physics (like you understand all that stuff) is enough evidence for me that I should just bow out of the discussion.”

You fired the first shot; I got ticked, and responded;

“Guess what, I do and the models do too!

Like, I do buddy. The methodology you've described above is grade 10 stuff. Why don't you do some reading before being insulting!”

You responded accordingly;

“....forgive me please, if I'm dead wrong, but that sure smells like BS being paraded as condescending crap, to me. ...but I know my nose is way off at times, so please help me understand that remark?”

I accepted the notion; the unintentional tone passed on through my earlier delivery was very poor. In recognition of my bad manners, I offered an apology and provided my “understanding” of String Theory as requested.

“I apologize for coming across as condescending. I am nothing more than someone that dabbles in the dark arts from the perspective of a hobbiest, but make no claim to being an actual “physicist”.

String Theory / Quantum Gravity" was initially proposed by Dr. Brian Green (The Elegant Universe) as a potential answer to Dr. S. Hawking's (A brief History of Time) 30+ year dilemma in developing a model which would bind the two classical models of mechanics (the very large & the very small) together.

I’m open to expanding my knowledge on the subject Mitch, but here’s my present understanding of String Theory; all matter, that is, everything you see, touch or otherwise perceive as “real”, is actually only a manifestation of pure energy. IOW’s, there’s nothing solid between the spaces and your perception of an animate object is only a product of your “own” present, 3, some would say 4, D view of a “total” reality consisting of as many as, eleven dimensions of space time.”

I’m a lousy professor Mitch. It became apparent I wasn’t able to make my point in a manner that made sense to you. I attempted to respond and assist you in your stated quest for information twice suggesting Dr. B. Greene’s film, “The Elegant Universe”? The suggestion was never acknowledged?

Moving on, it’s great, I guess, that you decided to identify yourself Mitch, but I’ve made the opposite choice for my own reasons.

Regardless, there are several people lurking here on site that know exactly who I am. For that reason alone, I’m not about to fabricate myself falsely.

BTW, I retired from flying with 15K hrs command time on turbine ac and never hurt a hair on anyone’s head.

Beyond piloting, I’ve done a lot of things with my life that I would assume you aren’t likely aware of either.

To name a few;

I’ve served in uniform and know both, what it’s like to be a target, and what it’s like to target another human being.

I’ve climbed a mountain, scuba dived, played a recorder & guitar (sort of), hunted, fished, dropped skydivers as well as participating in all kinds of other extra-curricular activities.

I’ve dined with one of our Prime Ministers, served on Mr. Justice Moshansky’s staff during the Dryden years, given a lecture to the Security Chief’s from all of Canada’s Airports, associated with the NTSB and participated in many other aviation related activities.

From my perspective, my most satisfying achievement was leading a research effort with the intention of developing a more efficacious chemotherapeutic approach to treating a very nasty and incurable form of cancer. Early clinical study results (four patients) have demonstrated a significantly improved result over other current therapies and are considerably better than initially predicted.

Then there’s my greatest weakness / failure. During the early years I failed to recognize the importance of at least, English language studies. Many years ago I met with a lawyer to discuss what I thought was a hugely complicated and difficult issue. After less than ten minutes of rambling, the lawyer got the message and wrote a letter in less than five that blew me away. Since that time I’ve been attempting to make up for lost time. Because of our exchange, I conclude, I have a ways to go!

Anyway Mitch; I’m not a BS’er and would appreciate returning to an AEF “friend” like status with you again?

[Mitch Cronin]

Thank you Defcon. I appreciate that...

Obviously the perception of things is relative to the position of the observer...

(Yes, I did see, and quite enjoyed, the film The Elegant Universe)

...in any case, in regards to your last sentence, I happily accept.

Cheers,

[GDR]

A lot of modern cosmologists are coming around to a way of thinking that I've had for decades: our cosmos, our universe, our whatever, may very well have come about from a "big bang". However, if you think like I do, there are many, many such "universes", all interacting with each other much like the bubbles in a boiling pot of water. Why can't we see these other universes? Well, we have enough trouble seeing the edge of our own. If there is as much space between them as I would imagine, this would further limit our ability to observe them.

Just an opinion!

Hi Moon

I don't think that you are describing is what scientists talk about when they refer to multiple universes or even an infinite number of universes. Our universes consist of everything that is encompassed by our 3 spatial dimensions and time. Any other universe would exist outside of that.

For example there would be no reason that another universe would exist in another only in another physical location. It could be all around us but we are just unable to perceive anything beyond our own 4 dimensional universe.

This is from wiki on multiverses.

Some speculative theories have proposed that this universe is but one of a set of disconnected universes, collectively denoted as the multiverse, altering the concept that the universe encompasses everything.[12][61] By definition, there is no possible way for anything in one universe to affect another; if two "universes" could affect one another, they would be part of a single universe. Thus, although some fictional characters travel between parallel fictional "universes", this is, strictly speaking, an incorrect usage of the term "universe". The disconnected universes are conceived as being physical, in the sense that each should have its own space and time, its own matter and energy, and its own physical laws. Thus such physical disconnected universes should be distinguished from the metaphysical conception of alternate planes of consciousness, which are not thought to be physical places. The concept of a multiverse of disconnected universes is very old; for example, Bishop Étienne Tempier of Paris ruled in 1277 that God could create as many universes as he saw fit, a question that was being hotly debated by the French theologians.[62]

There are two scientific senses in which multiple universes can occur. First, disconnected spacetime continua may exist; presumably, all forms of matter and energy are confined to one universe and cannot "tunnel" between them. An example of such a theory is the chaotic inflation model of the early universe.[63] Second, according to the many-worlds hypothesis, a parallel universe is born with every quantum measurement; the universe "forks" into parallel copies, each one corresponding to a different outcome of the quantum measurement. Authors have explored this concept in some fiction, most notably Jorge Borges' short story The Garden of Forking Paths. However, both senses of the term "multiverse" are speculative and may be considered unscientific; the fact that universes cannot interact makes it impossible to test experimentally in this universe whether another universe exists.

Here is the link to wiki that the above quote comes from:

Universes

There is a physicist named Julian Barbour that talks about time being broken down into a series on moments. (Like watching a movie that seems to flow while in reality it is a series of individual pictures.) His theory is that there are 10 to the 43rd power moments in a second. (Each moment is one Plank time) He then goes further and postulates that each of his moments constitutes an eternal universe.

Wiki on Barbour

This is light years beyond my ability to comprehend but it does give a bit of an idea of how far some of these guys go in their thinking.

Incidentally I just ordered a book today that looks really interesting. It is called “In Search of Time” by Dan Falk.

Cheers

Greg

[GDR]

Greg... Some of what's in Genesis (and I know little of it) may seem to agree with our understanding of science's explanation of the genesis of our world, but aren't there some stark contrasts as well? (I just grabbed the Good Book for reference  )

Here's a for instance... Genesis says "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: and he made the stars also." [italics as in this Bible]

Obviously that'll be the sun and the moon... equally obvious, I think, is the absolute lack of any astronomy-like science understood by the author. (or, of course, anyone else in his time.)

We know the moon to be no light at all, of course... and the sun is only a star itself...  and the concept of night and day only apply locally and not at all in space...

It's exactly that sort of thing that prevents me from accepting any more of what's written in this book... That was on page one. I can't read any further without knowing it's no word of an all knowing God at all. It's written by men of earth. Men who had no way to know the smaller light was not a light, and the larger light was the same as billions of billions of others, or that there were other galaxies full of those same things out beyond their imagination... 

But it's undoubtedly a good history book. 

...no disrespect at all intended. I offer my opinion, that's all.  ...but you knew that. 

There you go Mitch. You're thinking like a Biblical literalist again. The Bible is not a science text. The ancient Hebrew texts are mythologies. That doesn't mean however that they don't contain truth. (It is like the parable of the good Samaritan. It contains truth without having to have actually happened that way.) The basic underlying theme of the first part of Genesis is the concept that our universe had a beginning and that it was created by an external intelligence called God.

I just find it interesting that it appears to be accurate in that it suggests that time had a beginning, that it wasn't created all at once, (the universe was around for about 10 billion years before the Earth came into existence), and that life evolved in some sense at least to the point that animals predated mankind.

I agree that it's written by men. I'm just reading through a commentary on the book of Acts. It is a book written by Luke, (same guy who wrote the gospel Luke), that tells the story of the early disciples and how the Christian church spread the way it did. I'm not suggesting that God controlled Luke's hand. I do believe that Luke chronicled what happened just as he observed and had related to him. I believe that the gospels present an accurate view of the life of Jesus as written by men. Yes, I believe that they had divine inspiration, but not in the sense that it was ghost written by God.

As for the Old Testament, as I've said before I see it as a history of God working through the Israelites. There are terrible atrocities described in these stories. There have been terrible atrocities committed in the name of God in more modern history. If we had a history of the crusades written by the crusaders we would probably have an account that claims that God had told them to do what they did. That doesn't mean that God actually did tell them that. Either they actually believed it or they used that as an excuse to justify their actions.

So I'm not continually repeating myself here is a link to a post on this issue from the last thread on this subject.

Mythology and the Bible

By the way. Greene's "The Elegant Universe" is interesting but his later book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is much better in my view.

Good chatting with you Mitch

Greg

[Moon The Loon]

Hi Moon

I don't think that you are describing is what scientists talk about when they refer to multiple universes or even an infinite number of universes. Our universes consist of everything that is encompassed by our 3 spatial dimensions and time. Any other universe would exist outside of that.

For example there would be no reason that another universe would exist in another only in another physical location. It could be all around us but we are just unable to perceive anything beyond our own 4 dimensional universe.

This is from wiki on multiverses.

Some speculative theories have proposed that this universe is but one of a set of disconnected universes, collectively denoted as the multiverse, altering the concept that the universe encompasses everything.[12][61] By definition, there is no possible way for anything in one universe to affect another; if two "universes" could affect one another, they would be part of a single universe. Thus, although some fictional characters travel between parallel fictional "universes", this is, strictly speaking, an incorrect usage of the term "universe". The disconnected universes are conceived as being physical, in the sense that each should have its own space and time, its own matter and energy, and its own physical laws. Thus such physical disconnected universes should be distinguished from the metaphysical conception of alternate planes of consciousness, which are not thought to be physical places. The concept of a multiverse of disconnected universes is very old; for example, Bishop Étienne Tempier of Paris ruled in 1277 that God could create as many universes as he saw fit, a question that was being hotly debated by the French theologians.[62]

There are two scientific senses in which multiple universes can occur. First, disconnected spacetime continua may exist; presumably, all forms of matter and energy are confined to one universe and cannot "tunnel" between them. An example of such a theory is the chaotic inflation model of the early universe.[63] Second, according to the many-worlds hypothesis, a parallel universe is born with every quantum measurement; the universe "forks" into parallel copies, each one corresponding to a different outcome of the quantum measurement. Authors have explored this concept in some fiction, most notably Jorge Borges' short story The Garden of Forking Paths. However, both senses of the term "multiverse" are speculative and may be considered unscientific; the fact that universes cannot interact makes it impossible to test experimentally in this universe whether another universe exists.

Here is the link to wiki that the above quote comes from:

Universes

There is a physicist named Julian Barbour that talks about time being broken down into a series on moments. (Like watching a movie that seems to flow while in reality it is a series of individual pictures.) His theory is that there are 10 to the 43rd power moments in a second. (Each moment is one Plank time) He then goes further and postulates that each of his moments constitutes an eternal universe.

Wiki on Barbour

This is light years beyond my ability to comprehend but it does give a bit of an idea of how far some of these guys go in their thinking.

Incidentally I just ordered a book today that looks really interesting. It is called “In Search of Time” by Dan Falk.

Cheers

Greg

Hey Greg: I see where you are going with that, but the words you/we are using are words created by us. The problem I see with the description you are suggesting is inherent in your/Wiki's definition of "universe". It is my opinion that these definitions put "universe" in direct conflict with "infinity" in that "universe" is defined as a finite entity.

Whereas most people cannot wrap their heads around the concept of infinity, "that with no beginning and no end," me, I have trouble in the opposite way of thinking.

The latest edition of New Scientist has an interesting take on LQC's or Loop Quantum Cosmology, the thinking behind "The Big Bounce". A few years ago, Scientific American had a great couple of issues describing my "boiling pot of water" idea.

Lastly, while not a mathemetician to say the least, we could go back and revisit that great discussion about whether Time is a "thing" or just some form of temporal measurement invented by humans. Seems to me, we had a lengthy thread some years ago on that very topic.

Just some more fuel for the infinite flames to come!

[Don Hudson]

MtL, Greg, if I may leap in for a sec...

whether Time is a "thing" or just some form of temporal measurement invented by humans.

The notion of "thingness" goes back to Plato expressed in the "duality" of "the ideal" which is "imaginable" but never achievable, and "the thing-as-it-is", that which we apprehend with our senses - an empirical world. Our understanding of metaphphysics is based almost entirely upon this duality which historically has formed the basis for most of Western thought, best expressed/understood as "there is god, and then there is man, in the universe", or perhaps the slightly less familiar, "mind, and body" duality.

Such duality places a division between "thingness" and the notion that there is "perfection - the ideal, 'out there' " and it is our quest to just "get it", to uncover it's layered existence so we can just get to the "kernel" of understanding what "it", "is".

Focussing on "thing" sets aside the "in-between" - that space which is 'tween "thing" and "thing", most commonly expressed as a "relationship between...".

So in positing the question, "is time a thing", we seek a corporeal "thingness" which we can somehow "dis - cover" (intentionally separated to provide a new meaning to the term!), "time" such that we can "point" to it, delineate it, and, in the end, dominate and/or control it because "thing-ness" can be manipulated.

En-framing the question thus, (metaphysically), we limit our view of "time" and it's possibilities. Perhaps time is a relationship of change which cannot be delineated in or by metaphysics at all but is only "real" because we ourselves are "real" and "hermeneutically" sense time as "why 'things' happen" rather than as a "signal" upon which "reality rides and modulates".

Foucault uses the term, "discourse" to describe not an act of discussion but an act of "reality-making". Such notions are expressions of Structuralist thought. "One is not "free" to think anythng outside the rules of one's language", he might say. Language "enframes" the discourse.

Being then becomes something quite different than our day-by-day interpretation, (our "hermeneutic disposition, in other words) of "being" - it is perhaps, not some"thing" to just peel away the layers from so we can just "get at the essence" or the "realness" of being and have it all settled in our mind as to what "god", "being" or "we" are. We can't "just nail down that concept of" time or being, and instead such interpretations are "always on the move", suspended in the "interpretive gesture towards but never arriving at" being.

The question perhaps might be, then, what is the meaning of time, if man did not exist in the universe? In Western thought, "being" and "time" are inextricably linked in our (Greek-sourced) language and therefore our sense of "reality-as-thingness". Such a sensing of what we call time is not universal in language or in thought however. Daoist thought, for example, does not seek material "certainty" in "thing-ness", or the sense that "ah!, we've nailed that thought down!, next!" but rather senses "the quiver", or "the wash" in the universe and observes rather than concludes. The idea of "goal", "conclusion", "certainty", "aha!, Now we 'know'..." etc, are very western notions which are transparent to us because we are, after all, Western, but they are not at all necessary nor do they emerge in all places or times.

This kind of stuff flies directly in the face of Plato's ideas and his ideas' progeny, "Western thought". It certainly challenges our daily, familiar notions of thing-ness and life which make because our notions of reality are both firmly, transparently, grounded in language and our sense of reality as "science" as interpreted it for us.

[GDR]

Well one thing for sure Don I can't answer your posts with one quick reading of it.

With my minimal understanding of Plato and the philosophers of that era is that they actually valued knowledge of the "unseen", (philosophy and theology), over knowledge of the material world, and that all knowledge comes from God.

However they also had a deistic view of God which seems in some ways to be contradictory with the idea that knowledge comes from God, but then, as I say, my grasp of this stuff is weak to say the least. This deism is what I think leads into this dualistic view of our existence that you were talking about.

As I understand it Plato didn't see the material world as representing true reality which is where, it seems to me, that science is now taking us. Science is full of talk of dark matter, dark energy, other dimensions and/or universes etc. Time of course is part of that material world so I'm pretty sure that Plato and Socrates would be very comfortable with those scientists that talk about time being an illusion.

You talk about, "Focusing on "thing" sets aside the "in-between" - that space which is 'tween "thing" and "thing", most commonly expressed as a "relationship between...".

That reminds me of Paul's writing when he said, "for now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face--". There is the veil that separates mankind from it's creator.

When we talk about time being "real" I think we are actually viewing time as being universal whereas we know in reality that time passes at different rates for each one of us. Sure the differences are minuscule but the fact remains that these differences exist. Whose time then represents reality?

All of this goes back to where we were in the sense that the question, ""what is real?", doesn't have a definitive answer that we can come up with unless one is a materialist, and even then I think one would have a lot of questions. In my view the material world is part of a greater reality which includes all that is seen and all that is unseen. This ties into Christian thought, that at the end of time all of reality comes together and all that is now unseen will become seen. (personally I would use the word perceived rather than seen, but you get my drift.)

I realize this does not cover everything in your post but frankly I can make enough of an idiot of myself replying to that which I do have some grasp of.

Merry Christmas Don

Greg

[GDR]

Lastly, while not a mathemetician to say the least, we could go back and revisit that great discussion about whether Time is a "thing" or just some form of temporal measurement invented by humans.

I guess you could say that seconds, minutes, hours etc are units of temporal measurement invented by mankind but time itself is something different than that. I don't think time is a thing, I think it is just the way we perceive change as I said.

We talk about a star being millions of light years away. Whose standard of time tis being used to define the year in the term "light year". Nothing is as it seems.

[DEFCON]

Time

Three rats are trained to push a button at precise twelve-second intervals in return for a treat.

One rat is then injected with marijuana, another with cocaine, and a third serves as the control.

The control continues to perform as expected.

The marijuana specimen loses touch with his normal measurement of time increasing the push interval time by three to twelve seconds.

The cocaine specimen can’t wait and soon is pushing the button in ever-shorter intervals.

Time is therefore shown to be a matter of individual perception.

Time measurement keeps us all moving together by realigning our perception.

[Canus Chinookus]

And how does one measure time when travelling at or near the speed of light? Difficult to perceive time in that instance... a clock won't work the same in that example, will it?

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

First, don't despair! I have as much trouble keeping all this straight as anyone. I'm trying not to be obscure but the nature of such a dialogue is such that one doesn't so much "grasp" it as in "aha!, Now I have it!" as to be open to the sense of it. It isn't "metaphysics" and it isn't "analytical" or logical. Ours is a language, currently, of rationality (rather, the "tyranny of same) and so when one is not "logical" and "setting out an argument", one is being "obscure". But there are infinite ways to be obscure...

With my minimal understanding of Plato and the philosophers of that era is that they actually valued knowledge of the "unseen", (philosophy and theology), over knowledge of the material world, and that all knowledge comes from God.

Hm....I'm not the strongest in this area of historical thought or Greek gods either, but I do know that Plato never considered that, "all knowledge comes from "God". That would never have entered Plato's, or even Aristotle's consciousness I strongly suspect.

However they also had a deistic view of God which seems in some ways to be contradictory with the idea that knowledge comes from God, but then, as I say, my grasp of this stuff is weak to say the least. This deism is what I think leads into this dualistic view of our existence that you were talking about.

No, "deist" thought in Greek society did not lead to "dualist" thought. The separation of mind from body, man from the world etc is not deist in origin. The notion of "deism" is a religious term, not a philosophical term. The Greeks didn't believe in "God". "God" didn't exist for them, certainly not a "Christian God" anyway. They weren't deists at the time because they wouldn't have known what a "deist" was but they did believe in a universe "set in motion", a later deist/religious interpretation of belief.

Remember though, just because it has a label - a noun, (like "robin", like "Aspen", like "Don", or...?), doesn't mean we know what it is! .

The Greeks and Romans had many gods, and believed in all of them as informing their lives and their reality as strongly as believers in God do today.

We can say that there are traces in Greek thought from 2000 years BC of early Christian beliefs. But we cannot attribute Christian thoughts to the Greeks, despite our discussions on what "time" really "is"..., (What is the "is-ness" of time?)

"Hermes" was one such god among many, and is a distant root to the term I have used earlier, "hermeneutics", used to describe

Hermes:

Hermes (Greek, Ἑρμῆς, IPA: /ˈhɝmiːz/) is the messenger of the gods in Greek mythology. An Olympian god, he is also the patron of boundaries and of the travelers who cross them, of shepherds and cowherds, of thieves and road travelers, of orators and wit, of literature and poets, of athletics, of weights and measures, of invention, of general commerce, and of the cunning of thieves and liars.[1] His symbols include the tortoise, the rooster, the winged sandals, and the caduceus. The analogous Roman deity is Mercury.

The Homeric hymn to Hermes invokes him as the one "of many shifts (polytropos), blandly cunning, a robber, a cattle driver, a bringer of dreams, a watcher by night, a thief at the gates, one who was soon to show forth wonderful deeds among the deathless gods."[2]

Hermeneutics:

Etymology

The word hermeneutics is a term derived from the Greek word ἑρμηνεύω (hermeneuō, 'translate' or 'interpret'), and is of uncertain origin.[3] It was introduced into philosophy mainly through the title of Aristotle's work Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας (Peri Hermeneias, 'On Interpretation', more commonly referred by its Latin title De Interpretatione). It is one of the earliest (c.360 BC) extant philosophical works in the Western tradition to deal with the relationship between language and logic in a comprehensive, explicit, and formal way. It is often suggested that the Greek word root is etymologically related to the name of the Greek mythological deity Hermes, which is also of uncertain origin[3], but cognate to a corrupted composite borrowing from Hebrew Har [ha]Emet (Emes) referring to the Biblical Mount Sinai where Moses interpreted the Jewish Law (known as haEmes - the Truth) to the people.[4]

History

In the last two thousand years, the scope of hermeneutics has expanded to include the investigation and interpretation not only of oral, textual and artistic works, but of human behaviour generally, including language and patterns of speech, social institutions, and ritual behaviours (such as religious ceremonies, political rallies, football matches, rock concerts, etc.). Hermeneutics interprets or inquires into the meaning and import of these phenomena, through understanding the point of view and 'inner life' (Dilthey) of an insider, or the first-person perspective of an engaged participant in these phenomena.

Postmodern thought has somewhat taken up the notion of interpretation - of a world "always and forever on the move", with nothing "prima facie" underlying "reality", nothing "preordained" to inform reality which is "ours to dis-cover" the "truth" behind, a sort of "a priori"-ness about it.

A number of authors and philosophers have written about these notions but I won't enumerate them here. The "interpretive gesture" to which I referred in another post at another time is the gesture towards a receding horizon of meaning. This is substantively different than a Structuralist view which sees the world as possessing "in and of itself, beyond humans" a material, "predictable", accessible reality which we may apprehend, control and manipulate if only with "sufficient" tools, intelligence, insight, technique, connections and so on. As a good friend puts it, nor does this "underwrite relativism" because one may be "absolute" in the interpretive moment but one will never be "right", nor will there be an answer which may then be conveyed to others as finally resolving one issue or another.

None of this exonerates, or supports or relates to the ephemeral gestures of faith or the willful techniques of the language and conclusions of science, although gravity isn't open to interpretation... Such discourse really has nothing to do with either and everything to do with both. One may never grasp and hold it for such instantly releases meaning which is forever "on the move".

You may or may not be surprised to learn that many of the philosophers I read, (rather, attempt to read) are deeply religious and engage in the most fascinating discussions within their works.

Charles Taylor, recipent of last year's Templeton Award, is, as most might know now (from past posts), a Catholic and one of the world's greatest philosophical minds. This isn't the same as coralling a scientist for "religion's side" of the argument - I mean no such thing because IT means not such thing! John D. Caputo, writes philosophy with wonderful humour and deep seriousness, all the while remaining a practising Catholic. Take a look at an abbreviated bibliography:

Books by Caputo(1982) Heidegger and Aquinas

(1986) The Mystical Element in Heidegger's Thought

(1987) Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition, Deconstruction and the Hermeneutic Project

(1993) Against Ethics - Contributions to a Poetics of Obligation with Constant Reference to Deconstruction

(1993) Demythologizing Heidegger

(1997) The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida

(1997) Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida, ed./auth.

(2000) More Radical Hermeneutics: On Not Knowing Who We Are

(2001) On Religion

(2006) Philosophy and Theology

(2006) The Weakness of God

(2007) After the Death of God, with Gianni Vattimo

(2007) How to Read Kierkegaard

(2007) Transcendence and Beyond: A Postmodern Inquiry, with Michael J. Scanlon

(2007) What Would Jesus Deconstruct?: The Good News of Postmodernism for the Church

Books edited by Caputo(1992) Modernity and Its Discontents, ed.

(1993) Foucault and the Critique of Institutions, ed.

(1997) Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida, ed./auth.

(1999) God, the Gift and Postmodernism, ed.

(2001) The Religious, ed.

(2001) Questioning God: Religion and Postmodernism II, ed.

(2004) Augustine and Postmodernism, ed.

Books about Caputo(1997) The Very Idea of Radical Hermeneutics, ed. Roy Martinez

(2002) A Passion for the Impossible: John D. Caputo in Focus, ed. Mark Dooley

(2002) Religion With/Out Religion: The Prayers and Tears of John D. Caputo, ed. James Olthuis

The "negation" of religion is not the project of philosophy or science. One interpretation of the notion of discourse might be, when one "answers the question", dialogue is over and "the discourse" takes hold, "discourse" meaning the language of specialists. From "Foucault for Beginners" (Moshe Süsser),

"The idea is that technical specialists always work together to establish their field and it's dominant ideas. These technical fields have had ever-increasing power over people, and these discourses have profoundly shaped the structure of our society. For instance, the discourse on madness, produced by psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and other Experts define the roles of craziness, and thus also the roles of normalcy that we take on."

The dialogue however, continues "the quest-ion".

I'm exploring as much as writing here Greg - I have no belief in god whatsoever but that does not mean I don't have a belief in god sometimes.