iSoul Time has three dimensions

# Category Archives: Knowing

epistemology, science, kinds of knowledge, methodology

# Demi-Creator Postulate

I introduced the Demi-Creator Postulate (DCP) here. This post explores the concept further.

Young-earth creationism (YEC) accepts what might be called the Biblical Creator Postulate (BCP). This postulate is an attempt to bring the Creator as described in the Bible into science. Not only does this bring theological debates into science but it also makes scientists attempt to determine what the Creator should be expected to do that could be observed, which makes scientists into theologians. This is science as practiced in the Middles Ages, when the Roman Catholic Church’s status in Europe ensured theological conformity. The Reformation and the Scientific Revolution have prevented such a situation since the 16th century.

In contrast, a demi-creator (DC) is a hypothetical being definable for the needs of science and observable only indirectly. Whether or not a demi-creator is a window on the Creator of the theologians is a metaphysical question, and so not a concern of science.

I would initially describe a demi-creator as a master designer and builder, who meets their given design criteria, whether these criteria are unknown to us or are specified in a separate postulate.  This demi-creator is like us in their intelligence and reasoning ability, only greater and with the ability to produce an extremely complex design that works. This enables us to make inferences about what to expect they have done given what has been observed.

The DCP enables science to consider the possibility of a creator without going outside of science. It posits more than the intelligent design (ID) proponents have been willing to admit but less than what is assumed by the YECs with their BCP.

Addendum (12/2018): The DCP could perhaps better be called the Designer and Builder Postulate (DBP). Intelligent design implicates a designer, and there must also be a builder to implement the design. This designer and builder is not necessarily a creator in the sense of creatio ex nihilo. What is necessary is that the design should be intelligible to us and that the making should be possible.

# Length clock

A time clock is a device that measures a constant rate of internal motion. Time clocks are synchronized to a common event and rate of internal motion. A time clock is used by correlating its internal measure with other motions and events. The unit of measure for a time clock is normally a unit of time but even if it is a unit of length, the constant rate means the length correlates to a time.

A length clock, also called an odologe, is a device that measures a constant rate of external motion. Length clocks are symmacronized to a common event and rate of external motion. A length clock is used by correlating its external measure with other motions and events. The unit of measure for a length clock is normally a unit of length but even if it is a unit of time, the constant rate means the time correlates to a length.

In general, a device to measure length need not run at a fixed rate, or “run” at all, such as a ruler. An orientation toward length rather than time is comparable to the Myers-Briggs-Jung perceptive rather than judging personality type (e.g., see here), in which “time” is perceived less by a time clock and more by something like the tasks remaining or the distance remaining on a trip (as measured by landmarks).

Modern cultures run on a time clock but ancient cultures ran on a different sense of time. I hypothesize that their sense of time is what the length clock measures. They measure what “time” it is by their length from a reference site, for example, how close they are to Jerusalem for the holy days. It is the same with any trip: one can measure the progress by either the elapsed time or the length of distance remaining to the destination.

Natural cyclical movements such as the positions of migrating birds could be used for an informal length clock. A consistent length clock requires a repeatable motion at a fixed rate. There is a constant relationship with such a device and a time clock, so in a sense they are interchangeable.

# Symmetric relativity

Although there are many experimental methods available to measure the speed of light, the underlying principle behind all methods [is] the simple kinematic relationship between constant velocity, distance and time given below:

c = D / t                     (1)

In all forms of the experiment, the objective is to measure the time required for the light to travel a given distance. (Ref.)

From the perspective of the experimenter, light is an object whose speed is to be determined. Even though the distance traversed is fixed, it is placed in the numerator because this speed is to be compared with the speeds of other objects. For the same reason the quantity to be measured, time, is placed in the denominator.

But if we take the perspective of the experiment, of what is measured, then the fixed distance is the independent variable, which is placed in the denominator. The dependent variable is the time, which is placed in the numerator, so the pace of light is measured:

= t / D                     (2)

# Reality and belief

Reality precedes us: we discover it rather than invent it. Belief precedes knowledge, and metaphysics precedes epistemology. That is realism. Nevertheless, experience and thought can lead to revision of belief, which is the way of science.

Anti-realists make the mistake of limiting reality to what they know, and so limiting belief to knowledge. But they ignore their own prior beliefs and wrongly think of themselves as neutral observers and unbiased participants. They may retreat to a position of nonbelief, as if that were possible.

There is no knowledge without prior belief, at least provisionally. Prior belief may be like common sense or like a postulate or hypothesis. It must first be asserted to find its implications for inductive exploration. The conclusion of induction is new belief, expressed in definitions and principles, which forms the basis for deductive exploration.

There is no society without prior loyalties, such as blood and soil, language and custom. There is no religion without prior revelation, such as from a prophet or shaman or charismatic leader. There is no economy without prior exchange, such as between neighbors or tribes.

# A demi-creator for science

Creationists reject what might be called the Deep Time Postulate (DTP): that long stretches of time existed before the earliest humans ever lived. The DTP enables uniformitarianism in geology, evolution of all species in biology, and evolution of the solar system in astronomy. DTP enables science to insert a kind of history before history, that is, before written records or human artifacts.

Without the DTP, less than ten thousand years have transpired in the universe, that is, the time since humans and other living kinds appeared on the earth as determined from human artifacts and records. Instead of the DTP, creationists accept what might be called the Demi-Creator Postulate (DCP): that a demi-creator exists (or existed) who formed the earth and celestial bodies as well as the kinds of organisms that originally populated the earth. The DCP enables large-scale catastrophism in geology and creation in biology and astronomy.

Why “demi-creator” instead of Creator? The answer is that science does not use scriptures and so a scientific creator lacks the full range of characteristics that a theological Creator would have. For the purpose of science all that is necessary is a being like Plato’s demiurge*, who is like us but with much greater power and intelligence. I am calling this being a “demi-creator” since it is a partial creator. Whether it is the same being as the Creator of the theologians is for them to decide. For science a creator-type being is like us, not creating from nothing but forming a product from something else.

From the existence of a demi-creator one may infer that the creation is intelligible by us and that it exhibits features that are recognizable by us as intelligently designed. From knowledge of some parts of the creation, we may be able to infer the character of other parts, since they would exhibit similar characteristics, as a design engineer implements an overall design in every part.

One consequence of the DCP is that the creation is finite because a demi-creator is only capable of what we could do given greater intelligence and power. Creationists take this as supporting the creation of a finite number of different kinds of organisms. Different kinds of organisms likely exhibit similar design features, in what those who accept the DTP would call convergent evolution.

* The demi in demiurge is not from demi, meaning half or partial, but from demos, common people; nevertheless, it suggests something less than divine.

# Harmonic arithmetic

This post follows up on harmonic addition mentioned in the previous post here.

Harmonic arithmetic is an inverse arithmetic. It is based on an automorphism that interchanges the zero with the infinite and the greater-than-one with the less-than-one: 0 ↔ ∞ and x ↔ 1/x. So zero becomes the new inaccessible number and infinity becomes the new additive unit.

Harmonic addition was defined as a power operation:

$\textup{Harmonic&space;addition}\;&space;O_{-1}(a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{n})\equiv&space;\left&space;(&space;\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}^{-1}&space;\right&space;)^{-1}$

Simple harmonic addition is thus defined as:

$x\oplus&space;y=\left&space;(&space;\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{y}&space;\right&space;)^{-1}&space;=&space;\frac{xy}{x+y}.$

The harmonic additive unit is infinity instead of zero. Harmonic adding one to infinity equals one. Incrementing one leads to one-half, and in general each increment leads to a smaller number:

$x\oplus&space;1=\left&space;(&space;\frac{1}{x}+1&space;\right&space;)^{-1}&space;=&space;\frac{x}{x+1}.$

Harmonic subtraction is defined as:

$x\ominus&space;y&space;=x&space;\oplus&space;(-y)&space;=&space;\left&space;(&space;\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y}&space;\right&space;)^{-1}&space;=&space;\frac{xy}{y-x}.$

Note the reverse of x and y in the denominator. Harmonic multiplication is defined from multiple harmonic additions as:

$x&space;\odot&space;y&space;=&space;\frac{x}{y}$

which is surprisingly non-commutative. Harmonic division is defined then as:

$x&space;\oslash&space;y=xy$

which is surprisingly commutative. Harmonic exponentiation is defined from multiple harmonic multiplications as:

$x\,&space;(\wedge&space;)\,&space;y=x^{^{1-y}}.$

The harmonic square is the inverse:

$x\,&space;(\wedge&space;)\,&space;2=x^{-1}.$

Harmonic arithmetic is like counting down from infinity, in which an increment of one reduces the amount slightly.

# Thoughts on science and history

History is diachronic. Science is synchronic.

History is a narrative of time. Science is a theory of space.

A scientist sees two things and notices their similarities. An historian sees two things and notices their differences.

A scientist seeks what is universal that explains. An historian seeks what is unique that explains.

For science the default inference is to a universal nature. For history the default inference is to a unique particular.

A history of science is not a science. A science of history is not a history.

Historical science universalizes recent history. Historicism particularizes universal science.

Scientific history, or a science of history, is pseudo-history because it devalues particulars and overvalues universals.

Evolution is a theory of history presented as a science. Whig history is a philosophy of science presented as a history.

# Science and history posts

Posts on science and history:

10/17/2018 – Science and history once more

July 27, 2018 – Science or stories

3/13/2018 – Science and history again

2/19/2018 – Distinguishing history and science

January 17, 2017 – Combining history and science

September 19, 2016 – History and science once again

December 15, 2015 – From history to nature

August 8, 2015 – Science in history

February 21, 2015 – History and science

October 12, 2014 – Science and history again

January 21, 2014 – Science and history

# Church and ethnos

Most Christian congregations have an ethnos, a term from cultural anthropology for people with a common national or cultural tradition. Congregations are usually part of a larger network, denomination, or hierarchy, which has at least one ethnos. (Eastern) Orthodox autocephalous churches are national churches, which include the ethnos of their nation. The (Roman) Catholic church incorporates multiple national churches, each with its own ethnos. In places such as the U.S., a Catholic parish reflects the ethnic background of the parishioners, usually Italian, Spanish, Irish, or Polish.

Protestant denominations reflect their national origins. Lutherans have a Germanic or Scandinavian ethnos. Presbyterians have a Dutch, Scottish or Swiss ethnos. Anglicans have a strong British ethnos, which includes the Queen. Many denominations adopt the ethnos of the country they reside in, so for example American Baptists have an American ethnos. The Messianic congregations springing up have a Jewish ethnos.

A church ethnos reflects the way that Christianity is a universal religion that does not replace the ethnos of its adherents. The original Christian church had a Jewish ethnos but as Gentile believers became dominant, Christianity acquired the ethnos of the nations. The apostolic decision that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or keep the Jewish law affirmed Gentile national customs and laws.

Some worry that a church ethnos may be excessive or even idolatrous. While that is possible, church and ethnos have been together for centuries without significant harm. The excesses that have been pointed out, such as the Russian Orthodox under the Czars or some Lutherans in Nazi Germany, have come and gone. And the Lutheran Confessing Church was a witness against an excessive ethnos in the church.