The Nature of Our Reality

An interesting theory, I must say. Science has many practical effects, but there are also theories that are of value only in the sense of satisfying curiosity (which is certainly desirable to many of us). You may recall what Sherlock Holmes sad on the subject early in A Study in Scarlet. What, really, did it matter to him whether the Sun orbited the Earth or the Earth orbited the Sun?

I doubt nationalism would have played any noticeable role in Einstein's theorizing. In fact, he expatriated himself during the 1920s, becoming a stateless man. At least by then, he had a dislike of Germans even as he taught in Berlin. Other German physicists may have felt differently. Some were loyal enough during World War II, and others probably would have been had it not been for the anti-Semitism that drove so many out.

This, surely, is the point.

Time cannot exists without gravity, since it is the movement of the universe through space which creates the affect we call time. Every element of creation is dependent on the others, being held together by the word of the Almighty. In the dissecting of the universe, the frog dies.

Isn't the universe simply the stage upon which this scene of His story is taking place? And some may baulk at the use of the word "simple " as they carve away at the elements, but what is impossible for man, is possible by the spoken word of God. It is a crafty and deceptive foe, who would divert our eyes from the truth.

I used to ask a similar question when I was in my early 20s. I basically asked "Who would care if the world were destroyed tomorrow?" And would answer it "Nobody."  And thereby put the value of existence in its "proper" perspective. This is the very seed of nihilism.  Such discussions generally made people a little sick.





I disagree, to a point. The "God allows this to happen" answer at least gives us the opportunity to believe there is reason (even if we do not understand it) behind the universe, thus a higher truth i.e. it gives us hope. The other position gives us no such thing.

Atheistic materialism says there is no purpose to things. Religion says the opposite. (In Islam, nothing is said to happen that is no Allah’s will.)

The moving parts (which could destroy the entire earth at any time) appears to act like a clockwork universe (figuratively speaking, even if the underlying physics are a little different) and thus the answer seem to somewhere in the middle.

I shot a note to a Selwyn today thanking him for his continued support with his articles. This support is gracious and wholly unmerited on my part.

But I told him he combined two rare things: Literacy, and the ability to articulate a coherent story or theme beyond one paragraph. This is not always true of us here. It is rarely true of anyone at AT.

No it wasn’t. It was just academic baloney.

Let me state this as clearly as I am capable:

1) I detest people who are nothing but fault-finders. I suppose I qualify as one regarding this article. But I don’t fault him for his opinion as much as an inability to form two coherent paragraphs. I could care less if his thesis was that the appearance of Halley’s comet in 1910 led to the creation of a longstanding tile and tub cleaner as long as he could explain it clearly and build a coherent case.

The problem with the article is both academic hogwash and just today’s typical inability to hold a theme for longer than two sentences.

2) Scientific theories cannot show us the meaning of life, although their discoveries can bring to life meaning via the marvels described. Scientific measurements are always a subset of something else, if only the consciousness it takes to perceive them and then give them meaning. Only a sort of scientific fascism or zealotry can make of them the most important things.

3) Relativism is an offshoot of Marxism. The purpose is to show that Western Civilization is nothing special. Or, if it did have any advantages, these were unfair advantages that came at the expense of innocent and oppressed third-worlders. In short, it is an attempt to equalize squalor with achievement. Sorry, but both the Native Americans or Africans were technologically backward peoples. And living in the age where technology is of utmost importance, they were inferior cultures in any way that matters. It’s related to one of Rush’s Undeniable truths where he says that feminism was invented to give access to the mainstream to unattractive females. Rather than point out the social dysfunction of black ghetto culture, we’re instead said that it is just as worthy as any other expression. Relativism/multiculturalism.

Obviously it seems true that some have used the theory of Darwinism in nefarious ways. But that’s not Darwin’s fault. The naturalistic fallacy is not a new thing (roughly the whole is-ought problem). Just because something is doesn’t mean it’s the right thing. Dennis Prager points out, for instance, that only human beings have hospitals for the injured or sick. Nearly in every other instance in the animal world, the injured or sick are abandoned…or worse.

That is, despite whatever we find in this world, there is a moral sphere (like it or not) that hovers above it all. If one rejects that, one is more apt (if only out of convenient or laziness) to ground one’s morals in arbitrary (if not downright brutal) nature. I seriously doubt that the Nazis needed the theory of Charles Darwin for their racial program. But no doubt it was convenient to their cause. But anyone who thinks that was the main attribute has a screw loose and doesn't understand the history.

The same regarding the confirmation of light bending around the sun (to support Einstein at the expense of Newton). That says zero about how we ought to treat our fellow man, although the scoundrels amongst us are always looking for excuses to justify their ill use of others.

Is that so damn hard to write? For academic types, it usually is. For nearly all conservative types as well. Conservative thought out there is a relative wasteland.

Math is central to building a bridge, or anything technological or programmable. But it has naught to say about moral issues, otherwise you’d get in this ridiculous situation of, “Oops…forgot to carry the remainder. Yes, I guess abortion is okay.”

I’ve read a couple noble and honest descriptions of mathematics (such as by John Lennox) that note the strangeness that we’re even able to do math at all — that it works. Why should something that exists only in our minds work to build bridges and shoot rockets to the moon? Is there some existence to these things quite outside of the egg-shaped heads?

Mathematicians can also glimpse a form of beauty that you and I will never know. But having worked with some fine artists in the graphic arts industry, this is a trivial observation. A mother having a baby will glimpse a beauty that you or I will never know. Mathematics can be particularly esoteric, but it is nowhere unique in regards to revealing isolated spender.

So yes, of course, someone can trot out an equation that we will not understand. But unless they’re trying to build a better bridge or pointing out some mathematical solution to a physical property, their point is?

Einstein didn't like the idea of uncertainty.  Schroedinger had similar concerns; his famous thought experiment that has come down to us as Schroedinger's cat was an example of skepticism.  Relativity theory said the cat was neither dead nor alive until someone checked; he considered that silly.