iSoul Time has three dimensions

New terms for 3D time

This post highlights several recent terms or definitions added to the glossary above.

The distance is the metric of space, the shortest length between two points in space. Similarly, the distime is the metric of time, the shortest duration between two points in time.

A timeline is a linear ordering of events by distime from or to a reference event. A locusline is a linear ordering of events by distance from or to a reference event.

A clock shows the present instant in the local timeline. An odologe (o′∙do∙loje) is an app or device that shows the present point in the current locusline.

Instantaneous events occur in an instant of time. Punctaneous events occur in a point of space.

Simultaneous events occur at the same time. Simulocus events occur at the same place.

Synchronous motions are parallel in time, as in having the same period. From Greek syn+chron+ous. Symmacronous motions are parallel in space, as in having the same orbit. From Greek sym+macron+ous.

Pseudo-length is measured by time and expressed as length, as with multiplying time by the free-flow speed. Pseudo-duration is measured by length and expressed as time, as with multiplying length by the free-flow pace.

Inertia (linear) is the resistance of an object to any change in its state of motion. Facilia (linear) is the nonresistance of a subject to a change in its state of movement.

Atheist illiteracy

Antony Flew was a leading atheist who came to the conclusion that God exists. What changed his mind? “The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a ‘lucky chance.’ If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over.” (How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind)

Robert Hutchinson writes: “Recently, I’ve begun to systematically record all of the debates on the Existence of God that I can lay my hands on and listen to them at my leisure, usually while driving.

In the process, I made a shocking discovery. It turns out that the atheists are really, really good at insults but are actually quite poor debaters. The atheists insult Christianity, Judaism and religion generally with a nastiness that is almost breathtaking. They belittle. They demean. They insinuate. But the one thing they don’t do is offer intelligent arguments that disprove the existence of God.

In fact, they don’t actually reason at all.

Reasoning, after all, is a systematic questioning of assumptions… a marshaling of evidence… a critical examination of arguments. It is not, primarily, name-calling. When I first started watching these debates, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I assumed the atheists would eventually put forward logical arguments that the Theists would be hard pressed to answer. What I wasn’t prepared for was that the atheists didn’t really marshal salient arguments at all: they merely sneered.”

Michael Egnor writes: “When I was becoming a Christian, I secretly feared reading debates about God’s existence. I feared that my growing faith would be shattered by some obvious logical flaw in theist arguments. I began to read, with trepidation, Christian vs. atheist debates (my first was Does God Exist? The Great Debate. by J.P. Moreland, Kai Nielsen and others).

I was astonished. The atheist arguments, rather than presenting formidable challenges to belief in God, were.. pitiful. The Christian arguments were well-structured logical demonstrations, basically rigorous extensions of common sense. The atheist arguments were tangential, ad hoc, absurd (‘the universe caused itself’, ‘everything came from nothing’). The best the atheists could do is play semantic games. In Does God Exist, the most capable atheist philosopher, Kai Nielsen, merely argued that ‘God’ was undefinable, and therefore arguments for His existence were nonsensical. That’s the best he could do.

As I’ve studied the arguments, my disdain for atheist arguments has grown exponentially. None of the New Atheist ‘intellectuals’ has presented an argument against God’s existence that would get a passing grade in a freshman philosophy course.

Bottom line: read good philosophers like Feser and Craig and Moreland, and you’ll see that reason and logic are Christian virtues, not atheist virtues. Atheist illiteracy on even rudimentary philosophical issues is astonishing.”

Post-Christian Posing

The following is an excerpt from John Zmirak at The Stream on July 26, 2018, here:

In the 19th century, many Christians were deeply troubled by Darwin. They accepted his theories as facts that disproved the Bible’s claim to be inspired and inerrant. But they weren’t ready to slough off Christian ethics. Or even (in many cases) quit their jobs as prominent pastors and try to make an honest living. They quailed at the ruthless atheist socialism of Marx and Engels, and the harsh “social Darwinist” movement that hoped to speed up the “survival of the fittest.”

So these men of little faith hearkened to the deeply biased methods of “Higher” biblical criticism. Pretending to be a “science,” it weeds out the miraculous and supernatural parts of the Gospel. What it leaves behind is an ethical core, derived from cherry-picking stories of Jesus’ actions and precepts. That core, they could pretend, is really the “essence” of Christianity.

Never mind all those metaphysical claims (Our Lord’s divinity) or so-called miracles (His resurrection). And certainly pay no attention to apostolic traditions, Church doctrinal councils, or historic Christian practice.

The Ten Disenchantments

No, the “real” Christianity is … well not a creed. It’s more of an emotive stance, which distills from the life of Jesus a few simplistic precepts. Since they replace supernatural faith itself, I’ll call them the Ten Disenchantments.

  1. Outsiders are always right.
  2. The underdog deserves to win, every time.
  3. Making judgments about people is evil, and it means you’re a hypocrite.
  4. Religious observance is empty ritual, only valid for building a sense of community among the disadvantaged.
  5. Rebels and dissenters are always prophetic and deserve our attention.
  6. Sexual sins are mild peccadilloes, and those who condemn them are much worse sinners themselves.
  7. Every hierarchy is wicked.
  8. All inequality is the fruit of exploitation.
  9. Suffering has no value whatsoever, and it’s our first duty to stomp it out, whatever the cost.
  10. A neurotic, extreme unselfishness, which no person (much less nation) can really practice, is nonetheless the Christian ideal.

Now this not really a comprehensive ethical system. Nor is it a fair and representative reading of Jesus’ words and actions. If it were, then He would not have been the Messiah, since the above list is utterly incompatible with the Old Testament.

Two kinds of centrism

I’ve written about centrism before, here, here, here and here.

There are two kinds of centrism:

Lagging centrism is a political position comparable to a lagging indicator in economics. This position is characterized by going with the direction of the political winds of the day but lagging behind as if hedging one’s bets or being somewhat cautious. It is a position in the middle of the range of acceptable opinions, which changes as that range changes. Lagging centrists are called moderates in the U.S.

Dialectical centrism is a political position comparable to a contrarian investment strategy. This position is characterized by a dialectical strategy of supporting the opposite of the dominant extreme in order to restore balance to the body politic. It could also be called contrarian centrism, though is it not always contrarian. If the dominant position has been dominant for a long time but the opposite position is growing in influence, then the dialectical centrist will support the opposite position until balance is restored.

For example, in the common political tug-of-war between increasing liberty and decreasing inequality, if the politics of the day is tending toward increased liberty, the lagging centrist will tend in that direction but less than the leading edge. Whereas the dialectic centrist will tend against increased liberty if that has been the dominant side for some time. Yet if the dominant side has been the opposite, decreasing inequality, but increased liberty is growing in influence, then the dialectic centrist will support the latter until balance is restored.

Not a marriage

A marriage is the union of a man and a woman for life. Marriage is recognized by all societies. Marriage is a social institution, and marriage customs differ somewhat from society to society.

Marriage is normally recognized by the government, though some people forgo such recognition. It can happen that the government will recognize relationships as marriage that society as a whole does not recognize. For example, the (Roman) Catholic Church has standards for divorce and annulment of marriage which differ from that of the government.

That is also the situation of society today concerning “same-sex marriages”. The government recognizes these but both the Catholic Church and many non-Catholics do not recognize them as marriages. Society and the government have different definitions of marriage.

We have seen in the 20th century how governments can attempt to redefine language. Totalitarian governments seek to make it impossible to think thoughts they find dangerous. George Orwell satifized this in what he called Newspeak. Forced labor camp was “joycamp”. Compliance to Party orthodoxy was “plusgood”. “Thoughtcrime” was the criminal act of holding politically incorrect beliefs or doubts.

“Compelled speech” is a legal term with wider connotations. It means the state is compelling individuals or corporations to speak, or to speak in a prescribed manner. There are cases in which it is consistent with democratic principles, such as requiring warnings on packages of cigarettes. However, when speech is compelled concerning controversial matters of society, it is coercive and against democratic principles.

For example, the state of California passed a law to force pro-life pregnancy centers centers to speak a message that directly contradicts their beliefs and mission. The Supreme Court struck down this law. Their ruling “makes it clear that no one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion.” (adflegal.org)

The definition of marriage is another such an issue. The question is to what extent the government can force people to speak a language that re-defines marriage as something other than what they believe it is. Such compelled speech should be forbidden in a democratic society, and people should be allowed to speak a language they understand and that reflects their beliefs about a basic institution of society, marriage.

What conservatives should do

Although I’m a centrist, not a conservative, I desire to see the political factions balanced in order to have a balanced politics. But for some time the political left has had excessive influence: they dominate the media (both mass and elite), education, the arts and sciences, professional associations, NGOs, the judicial branch, and in many cases the executive and legislative branches, too. The only places where conservatives might have an edge are in the military, business, and traditional religious bodies, but even these have drifted leftward. And the younger generation is more left-leaning than their elders.

In short, although conservatives have achieved some political success, they are coming from a position of weakness, not a position of strength. The conservative position on many issues has trended leftward over time since it is under constant pressure from the dominant left.

As a centrist, I would like this imbalanced addressed. Conservatives, or non-leftists, should hold an equal share of influence. Then the factions will balance one another, and they will need to compromise toward the political center.

That said, what can conservatives do to improve their political position?

Read more →

Immediate motion

I recently wrote about rest in space and time here. This post is about the opposite: immediate motion, arriving at a destination instantly.

Immediate motion means an infinite speed in space. An infinite speed results in an immediate change of place: something moves from one location to another in an instant. It’s here and there at the same time. The departure and arrival are simultaneous.

A body at infinite speed is at two places at the same time, but a speed ratio has a finite time interval. If it’s the same time, how can there be a finite time interval?

For speed the time interval is fixed as the length changes. If the speed approaches infinity, then the travel length in the numerator approaches infinity, so the time interval in the denominator becomes a smaller and smaller proportion and the ratio approaches infinity. The body is at two places sinultaneously.

Immediate motion also means a zero pace in time. A zero pace results in an immediate change of time: something moves from one time to another in an instant. It’s now and then at the same location. The departure time and arrival time are at the same location. I’m calling this simulocus.

But wait, two times at the same location seems like no motion at all. What gives?

For pace the length interval is fixed as the time changes. If the pace approaches zero, then the travel time in the numerator approaches zero, so the length interval in the denominator becomes a larger and larger proportion and the ratio approaches zero. The body is at two times simulocusly.

Does immediate motion exist? Not under the Lorentz transformation, in which there is a finite maximum speed. But the Galileian transformation implicitly uses an infinite speed of light. And the co-Galileian transformation implicitly uses a zero pace of light.

Principles of centrism

Previous posts on political centrism are here, here, and here. This post further develops what centrism is.

There are three principles of what centrism is:

(1) Centrism seeks balance in all aspects of the state and its relationship with individuals, society, and other states.

(2) Centrism is non-ideological because ideologies are imbalanced: what distinguishes one ideology from another is how each is imbalanced.

(3) Centrism seeks to ensure that all ideologies are countered by opposite ideologies in order to neutralism them. Because of this, centrism is often contrarian, going against the dominant ideology so that a contrary ideology is strengthened. The goal is to gain or regain balance.

Centrism is the political philosophy of balance.

Science or stories

Science has no stories. Stories have characters, plots, and narratives. Science has data, hypotheses, postulates, and theories. Science and stories are different. They should be kept separate.

Stories can refer to science or be about scientists, but that is not part of science. Science can refer to stories or collect data from stories, but that is not storytelling.

Evolutionary stories are not part of science. Evolution without stories is part of science. But evolution without stories is variation and adaptation.

The science community and its boosters confuse science and stories. They are different and should be kept separate.

History is a chronicle, a narrative, a story. But history is not science.

The Bible is a story of stories. It includes chronicles, poetry, parables, and letters. The Bible may refer to science, but the Bible is not part of science.

The stories of the Bible are not inconsistent with science as long as science is not confused with stories. If science is confused with stories, then there may be inconsistencies with the Bible. The answer is to stop confusing science and stories.

Biblical creationists follow the science community and its boosters in confusing science and stories. Creationism is about history and theology, not science.

Science or stories: focus on one or the other but don’t confuse them.

Three relativity transformations

Two transformations of inertial reference frames are well-known: the Galileian and the Lorentz transformations. There is a third transformation as well, which will be called the co-Galileian transformation. Below is a derivation of all three transformations, closely following the paper Getting the Lorentz transformations without requiring an invariant speed by Andrea Pelissetto and Massimo Testa (American Journal of Physics 83 (2015), p.338-340). Their approach is based on the work of von Ignatowsky in the early 20th century.

We wish to characterize the transformations that relate two different inertial frames. Let us consider two inertial observers K and K′. Let r = (x, x2, x3) and w = (t t2, t3) be space and time coordinates for K and = (x´, x2´, x3)´ and = (t´, t2´, t3´) be the corresponding quantities for K′.

In order to simplify the argument, we will restrict our considerations to the subgroup of transformations involving x and t only, setting x2´= x2, x3´ = x3, t2´ = t2, and t3´ = t3. This is equivalent to choosing coordinates so that K and K′ are in relative motion along the x and t directions in K and the x′ and t´ directions in K´.

Read more →