Creation vs. Evolution vs. "Emanationism"

[Geo]

If you study the Bible objectively, and you are familiar with the Wachowski's cinematic illustration of, "The Matrix", the truth becomes more evident.
What the chief rebel instigated resulted in our present organic form, in which we find ourselves. Of which evolved through millions of years.
However, current physics theory since Einstein tells us that Time doesn't exist.
And the greater reality and truth involves the timeless, and eternity.
We are residing in an alternate timeline and paradigm. Until all things which are prophesied in the Bible are fulfilled.

 

[Cino]

Einstein tells us that Time doesn't exist.
And the greater reality and truth involves the timeless, and eternity.
We are residing in an alternate timeline and paradigm.

How do you reconcile your belief in the existence of multiple timelines with your disbelief of time? It sounds contradictory.

 

[Geo]

That would be in the book, "The End of Time".
Like on a map, there are divergent timelines springing off the main.

Barbour uses a hypothetical landscape he calls Platonia, to illustrate this.

 

[Cino]

That would be in the book, "The End of Time".
Like on a map, there are divergent timelines springing off the main.

Barbour uses a hypothetical landscape he calls Platonia, to illustrate this.

I don't doubt he does. He's not on this forum however. But you are.

I was asking how you do it: You simultaneously don't believe in time at all, and in multiple time lines?

How do you do it?

 

[RJM]

Like on a map, there are divergent timelines springing off the main.

Barbour uses a hypothetical landscape he calls Platonia, to illustrate this.

I don't really get this. The analogy doesn't work for me. A map is a symbolic representation of the territory. A map can be wrong and inaccurate and omit real features or include features which are not a part of the actual landscape.

A map can zoom in or zoom out. But I can't visualize how a map can illustrate 'divergent timelines springing off the main'. Do you mean the map can plot territory that it has not explored? Like string theory? Is it like a set of musical variations on the main theme? Can you elaborate?

 

[RJM]

It's assuming the universe is made of math, and not considering math as an emergent property of the universe. The fact mathematics can propose something, does not mean that thing exists in reality.

Mathematical models are often shown to be wrong by actual experiment. Or they can be superseded by better models, as Einstein superseded Newton.

The Perimeter Institute in Canada which seems to have hosted Julian Barbour's latest statements is an M-Theory think tank, headed up by Neil Turok, a brilliant and respected physicist. But the problem with M-Theory which umbrella includes string theory and brane theory etc, is that to date it is not falsifiable because experiments needed for evidence are out of reach, and more tellingly that the super symmetry particles which were predicted to be discovered by the large hadron collider, didn't turn up.

Using bigger colliders with higher and higher energies may or may not reveal these particles, which are basically essential to the theory. A lot of scientists write 'popular science' books. However for now M-Theory is just a belief -- it is just a set of mathematics, which may or may not represent ultimate reality.

I'm saying Barbour may be right. But he also may be wrong. There's no experimental evidence to support his math. There are all sorts of theories out there. Many, like loop quantum gravity, solve some problems, but create others. And all this from me as strictly an 'armchair amateur'

Imo

 

[Geo]

In one review -

"Along the way he treats us to
enticing glimpses of some of the mysteries of the universe, and presents intriguing ideas about multiple worlds, time travel, immortality, and, above all, the illusion of motion.
The End of Time is a vibrantly written and revolutionary book. It turns our understanding of reality inside-out."

 

[RJM]

In one review -

"Along the way he treats us to
enticing glimpses of some of the mysteries of the universe, and presents intriguing ideas about multiple worlds, time travel, immortality, and, above all, the illusion of motion.
The End of Time is a vibrantly written and revolutionary book. It turns our understanding of reality inside-out."

About the standard jacket blurb for a popular science book?

 

[RJM]

Never mind. I'm not disputing the value of the book. How could I when have not read it? I'm saying there are going to be other conflicting views. Science moves along. Barbour is selling his books -- good luck for him.

There are books by other 'popular' scientists too. I would hesitate before turning Barbour or Dawkins or Krauss or de Grasse Tyson etc, into my religion. But that's just me, lol ...

 

[wil]

Gotta be getting a commission.

 

[Geo]

"Gotta be getting a commission."

Yeah, that must be it.
I've read his book and find it makes sense with respect to deviations in a timeline.
Also with Physicists who are like minded, including Einstein.
Anyone mind if I ask a couple of questions?

Do you share the same survival instincts which all other creatures are endowed with, on the Earth?
Are you a believer in the many NDE accounts, and the continuance Life beyond this organic framework, apart from time and space?

 

[Cino]

Anyone mind if I ask a couple of questions?

Do you share the same survival instincts which all other creatures are endowed with, on the Earth?

I think so.

Are you a believer in the many NDE accounts, and the continuance Life beyond this organic framework, apart from time and space?

Like I stated previously, the accounts interest me, but I don't buy into the interpretation that they reveal anything about disembodied existence.

 

[RJM]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour

Criticism of Barbour's ideas

Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin repeatedly refers to Barbour's ideas in his books. However Smolin is usually highly critical of Barbour's ideas, since Smolin is a proponent of a realist theory of time, where time is real and not a mere illusion as Barbour suggests.

Smolin reasons that physicists have improperly rejected the reality of time because they confuse their mathematical models—which are timeless but deal in abstractions that do not exist—with reality.

Smolin hypothesizes instead that the very laws of physics are not fixed, but that they actually evolve over time.

Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll has criticised Barbour and all physicists who adhere to a "timeless-view" of the universe:

"The problem is not that I disagree with the timelessness crowd, it’s don’t see the point. I am not motivated to make the effort to carefully read what they are writing, because I am very unclear about what is to be gained by doing so. If anyone could spell out straightforwardly what I might be able to understand by thinking of the world in the language of timelessness, I’d be very happy to re-orient my attitude and take these works seriously."

 

[RJM]

So it's a conversation amongst scientists; it's not established mainstream science

 

[wil]

I

I've read his book

I should hope so! You promote it like the book of Mormon!

Do you share the same survival instincts which all other creatures are endowed with, on the Earth?

Lol. I used to...

Now I no longer worry about anything. I am just code in a program. No need for the golden rule anymore.

I do what I want and will either die or redrawn based on the program....as will those I smite!

 

[Geo]

Quote:
"The problem is not that I disagree with the timelessness crowd, it’s don’t see the point. I am not motivated to make the effort to carefully read what they are writing, because I am very unclear about what is to be gained by doing so. If anyone could spell out straightforwardly what I might be able to understand by thinking of the world in the language of timelessness, I’d be very happy to re-orient my attitude and take these works seriously.

Well, doesn't sound like he's looked into Barbour's insights but, here, I've explained
something that he has brought to light.

I doubt though that Smolin actually believes that either Adam, or "Paradise" exists.

Have a happy.

 

[RJM]

doubt though that Smolin actually believes that either Adam, or "Paradise" exists.

These people don't bring scripture into science whatever their personal beliefs. I'm wondering if Julian Barbour would endorse people using his ideas in an attempt to bring science into scripture in the particular case?

 

[juantoo3]

Are you a believer in the many NDE accounts,

Since you fail to acknowledge noted scientists in the field of NDE and OBE, I have no way to be certain what you call NDE is in fact NDE.

You have intriguing ideas, but you come off as huckstering this book you keep promoting. That is proselyting; raw, pure and simple. Not to mention an at length continual appeal to authority...which is a logical fallacy. You have placed this author on a pedestal...and while you may not see it yet, the day will come when he will fall off of your pedestal. It happens to the best of us. His view is his view. What is YOUR view of the matter?

 

[Geo]

juantoo, well, that's what you think.

Nikola Tesla said, “ If you wish to understand the Universe think of energy, frequency and vibration. “ .
But, you believe what you want to believe.

 

[wil]

Passive aggressive responses are.