"Enter Lynds. In his theory, reality is merely sequences of events that happen relative to one another; time is an illusion. There's no chronon, no direction for time's arrow to fly, no 'imaginary time' flowing 90 degrees off the axis of normal time. ... His answers make the mathematics of space and time look strange. If instants don't exist, then calculus - in which equations depend on fixed before-and-after positions in space - doesn't accurately describe reality. And that means a fundamental indeterminacy connects the blurry probabilities of the quantum universe with the seemingly stable macroverse where you and I live. ... A further realization: The human perception of time as a sequence of moments is just a neurological artifact, an outgrowth of the chunk-by-chunk way our brains perceive reality."
I highlight this because it has implications for how we view God in relation to time and space. This impacts on the debate about God changing or not -that is the openness of God debate. Also at stake are views about eternity, predestination and freewill and thus election and TULIP and all related matters. When this guy's book comes out next year [?] I reckon it'd be good if some of us took the time to read it and debate ...
Wired 13.06: Time's Up, Einstein:
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
2 comments:
This does not sound like a new theory at face value. Ive read other books which question times arrow, though the reference to no imaginary time sounds interesting.
Some of your questions though have been on the table for a century. For indeterminancy see Heisenburg's uncertainty principle; for the 'flow' of time being a neurological artifact see the fuzzy haired dude himself, Einstein. I think the free will and predestination are BOTH right. The problem is similar to the particle-wave experiments, what answer you get depends on what answer you ask. The whole debate seems overblown to me. An artifact of modern either/or thinking.
I have to confess too that I wonder if it differes substantially from block time. I agree that free-will and predestination should be understood as complimentary and realtivistic description. I'm most interested in this guy's theory [which is clearly seen as new by the physics community] will help to provide ways of thinking about spacetime that will help us to think about God's relationship with it and us.
Post a Comment