How did the designing intelligence come about? — praxis

The designing intelligence is a required element to account for reality as we perceive it, but we have no grounds to that would require the designing intelligence to "come about". That's why it is "First cause". Now you will say why can't universe be first cause? That still doesn't change the fact that this first cause needs to be intelligent.

But what is a statistic except the canonical example of order emerging from chaos? — apokrisis

Well we have to be careful how we define those terms. Chaos and order are not opposite terms, since there is an asymmetry between the two. Chaos is a relative term. Something is chaotic in comparison to a higher degree of order. But absolute chaos, as I've mentioned in my first post in this thread, is incoherent. A minimum of order is always necessary.

So the real question is how do higher degrees of order emerge from lower ones?

And could even an omnipotent God make a world that lacked the intelligibility of evolution as a general statistical principle - the inescapable logic of stating that what works is what survives? — apokrisis

That's not the question. Of course what works is what survives. But why do higher degrees of order work better than lower degrees of order?

Unfortunately for theists and their claims of higher intelligence, the Cosmos turns out to be fundamentally a process of disordering. — apokrisis

The end of the Universe is itself speculative. It's not sure that it is like that. And even if so, homogeneity isn't necessarily disorder, nor is this necessarily final, for we do not know what will happen once this occurs. Maybe quantum fluctuations would re-create the Big Bang.

The chaos and order scheme hasn't been addressed or worked out at all. No one knows what this means. — Nils Loc

Yes I've worked it out here:

I think repetition and pattern don't really get to the essence of order. Repetition and pattern are only one kind of order, more specifically the order that arises by having separate things arranged in such and such a way. But, essentially, order is a determination. This means that absolute disorder or absolute chaos must be impossible, for it entails the absence of any determination, and the absence of any determination is just non-being, nothing.

You may think of absolute chaos as two balls moving in empty space absolutely chaotically, without any rhyme or purpose. But that too isn't absolute chaos, because the balls are still determined in-themselves as balls, and also in relation to one another. So all that we're dealing with in reality will be different degrees of order - we can never deal with infinite chaos, for such a thing is incoherent - the negation of all determinations is its own negation.

The table is black. There is order. The table is not white. This seems to be a negation, but every negation is ultimately an affirmation, for nobody actually saw a table that is 'not white'. They saw a table which has some determination with regards to color - but it wasn't the color they expected - so they say it's not white. This "not white" is an underhanded way of affirming its real color. Thus, there is no pure negation. Determination is always prior to negation. — Agustino

I'm not sure what the problem is exactly. Maybe someone could state it in a single sentence for us cognitive plebeians. Intelligent design just gives us an infinite regress. — Nils Loc

The problem is the apokrisis-like attempts at the problem are "resolving" the problem with a restatement of the problem in different words. Intelligent design doesn't give us an infinite regress, it says that there must be an intelligence at work which can account for increasing order.

If Crapshootism were an effective sleeping aid there would be whole shelves dedicated to it in the self-help section. — praxis

All self-help is crapshootism ;)

Apokrisis has been going around saying our impulse to order here is to dissipate heat, to increase entropy. At the molecular level, under certain stable conditions (an energy source, heat bath) matter orders itself to dissipate more energy and this puts the upward trend of evolution of matter into motion.

How much heat are you dissipating? — Nils Loc

Sure, but you realise that this doesn't solve much of the problem. Namely, the second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law. The real question is why are things (the universe) such that statistically, they will tend towards the fastest dissipation of energy? To say because there is a law is nothing more than to say that opium causes sleep because it has sleep-inducing powers - a tautology. And even worse, because this isn't even a law, it's just a statistic.

But the ideological commitment to the notion of the Universe being purposeless, is now intrinsic to the Western worldview, when it's not a scientiific hypothesis at all, and can't be. It's simply a mind set. — Wayfarer

It is nothing but the preparation for the great darkness that is to befall the Western world. The West seems to be in the phase of its senility. It is too old, tired, and has lost all desire for life. This loss is expressed by the belief that everything is crapshot - otherwise you could not sleep well at night with who you are. But if everything is crapshot, that is now a justification for yourself.

The problem with the many materialists here is that they suppose that:

• (1) absolute chaos can exist.
• (2) progressively higher degrees of order could randomly emerge out of lesser degrees of order.

Both of these two premises are contradictory and false and entail ultimately that something can come from nothing.

Order from Chaos — MikeL

I have been thinking about this question lately as well. It's certainly one of the things that have been on my mind, especially with regards to philosophy.

What does order from chaos mean? How could order arise from chaos?

There is order – repetition of pattern - mathematics to the response. — MikeL

I think repetition and pattern don't really get to the essence of order. Repetition and pattern are only one kind of order, more specifically the order that arises by having separate things arranged in such and such a way. But, essentially, order is a determination. This means that absolute disorder or absolute chaos must be impossible, for it entails the absence of any determination, and the absence of any determination is just non-being, nothing.

You may think of absolute chaos as two balls moving in empty space absolutely chaotically, without any rhyme or purpose. But that too isn't absolute chaos, because the balls are still determined in-themselves as balls, and also in relation to one another. So all that we're dealing with in reality will be different degrees of order - we can never deal with infinite chaos, for such a thing is incoherent - the negation of all determinations is its own negation.

The table is black. There is order. The table is not white. This seems to be a negation, but every negation is ultimately an affirmation, for nobody actually saw a table that is 'not white'. They saw a table which has some determination with regards to color - but it wasn't the color they expected - so they say it's not white. This "not white" is an underhanded way of affirming its real color. Thus, there is no pure negation. Determination is always prior to negation.

Life is an order of moleculo-chemical processes that arises out of chaos — MikeL

Surely this "chaos" from which life arises cannot be absolute chaos, by the considerations that we mentioned before. Rather this "chaos" is a lower degree of order compared to the order that we call life.

It is the case of the 1000 monkeys typing on typewriters for a thousand years to produce the complete works of Shakespeare. The problem of the evolution of life from molecules seems settled. — MikeL

You see, for example this scenario presupposes that the monkeys will be typing in the first place. Something needs to constrain them, they should be typing, not smashing the keyboards, eating, etc. So even this simple system requires some kind of order for the works of Shakespeare to be produced.

The problem with both of these analogies though is that order would fall back into chaos. It would not last. The next words the monkeys typed after typing Shakespeare would be gibberish. The harmony of the bells would continue to fall back into a discordant cacophony. — MikeL

Yes, agreed. Without a teleological end that directs occurences towards the production of increasing complexity and order this would be impossible.

Surely the evolution of complex life from such a perfectly formed base of molecular and then cellular interaction points to intelligent design. — MikeL

Yes, the existence of this world does require an intelligence.

Do you know about the Doppler effect, red shift, and theories which describe the universe as expanding? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. What about them suggests that the speed of light in a vacuum would be different in different parts of the Universe?

No, I verify them for myself, and if they survive the verification process, I (provisionally, being a sceptic) believe them. Admittedly, that does make me a slow reader. But when I read something, it stays read. — andrewk

My point still holds, something being a revelation has nothing to do with whether you believe it or not.

I was not addressing the rest of the christians or I would have included them as well. And as far as I know there is no such thing as a group opinion, only a group with the same opinion. — Sir2u

Okay, but it's not "only" my opinion as you said ;)

And just how do you know this not to be true? — Sir2u

Because no text is understood just by reading the words.

Just where does it say anywhere that the bible has hidden things or ways to interpret the writings of long dead people? — Sir2u

Here:

So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.” — Matthew 13:35

None, since it directly contradicts GR. It's a theory with no home. — Rich

The problem with your view is that you base it off direct experience of duration, without understanding that there is a need for all experience to be coherent with each other. When someone like Einstein says that time is illusory, they mean that according to their experience, time only seems real from our limited perceptions of it, which don't show the true reality of the Universe that we can grasp through the process of trying to understand our perception and experience. They make this statement in the same way that we make the statement that the Earth is round even though it appears flat, or that the Earth travels around the Sun, even though it appears like the Sun travels around the Earth from our perspective. And yet, you want to deny their position. But to do so, it's not sufficient to appeal to your experience, for that is precisely what is under the question, you have to rather show why your experience is valid, and their process of reasoning is not or cannot be.

The problem with your position is that human beings live only in a very limited, and specific set of conditions, and therefore they have no capacity to measure the speed of light except under these very limited conditions. These conditions make up a very small proportion of possible conditions. So until human beings derive a way to measure the speed of light in all of these vastly differing possible conditions, there is very good reason to doubt the accuracy special relativity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, but we've also observed a large portion of the Universe through our telescopes and other such instruments. It's true that it is logically possible that the speed of light in a vacuum would be different in other places of the Universe, but what reason do we have to suppose this is the case? The mere fact that it's possible is a sufficient reason - it's also logically possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow, yet we don't really entertain that supposition all too seriously. Why not?

It's not true, light speed is only constant in a vacuum, it varies in speed while moving through any medium. Scientific concepts tend to take place removed from most conditions in, a more or less theoretical void... So the opposite of that is actually true. — Wosret

Yes this is correct. I should have been more specific. Light always travels at a constant speed in a vacuum.

Although it does bring up an interesting point. In a medium, do signals - say force traveling from one end of a body to another - travel slower than in vacuum? Cause in a vacuum if force is applied to the end of a very long object, the front of the object only becomes aware of the force at a later time, not instantaneously.

It would also be interesting how the relativity equations change if one of the two observers is in a non-vacuum medium.

I would say a number of factors, including but not limited to:
- lack of proper coping mechanisms
- lack of support system
- unrealistic expectations
- being averse to change
- unhealthy levels of attachment
- genetic predisposition
- childhood trauma
- underexposure/overprotection — CasKev

Some of these are very general, and in addition, we don't notice some of these characteristics in some people who do cope with extreme situations of physical & emotional pain (such as ending up in a concentration camp and the like).

Viktor Frankl - in his book Man's Search For Meaning - goes through the characteristics that enabled those who survived Auschwitz to, well, survive.

These characteristics seem to be undying hope, living day by day, and remaining attached to life. Those who became apathetic were the first to die, very frequently their bodies, including immune systems, would give up. Whereas those who, for example, wanted to see their families again, and not only this but hoped despite everything that they will see their families, they were the most likely to survive.

It is only when a person becomes incapable of tolerating the pain or emotion (due to intensity or duration) that they start losing the will to live. — CasKev

Yes, what makes a person incapable of tolerating pain or emotion?

Because if it is not you having the pleasurable life, then that would clearly suck. — schopenhauer1

Yeah big deal. I can say large parts of my life "sucked". So what? There's something exceedingly adolescent-like about complaining about things. Sometimes you're in a tough situation and you have to battle it out, or at least try to. Not a big deal. I know I'm not equal to others, and others aren't equal to me, but there's no ressentiment there. I don't resent those who are better off or wish I was like them. I'm happy with what I have and who I am, and it's something that people have to learn. Wishing for what others have, and always looking at what your neighbor has and you don't is the way to misery.

No, not the same life in terms of same goals and preferences, just the same in not having to deal with a great deal of undesirable elements of their lives. — schopenhauer1

That would be boring, because no bad surprises means no good surprises either. In addition, part of the pleasure of a journey is the difficulty of reaching your destination. If it is all easy, then there is little pleasure.

It is my experience, it is not illusory. If someone says that it is illusory, then we need to inspect the differences in our experiences. Differences in experience is real, it is not illusory. — Rich

So when I am in an open field and I look to the horizon and it seems that the Earth is flat according to my direct experience, should I really conclude it's flat? Or how do I reason about it that it's not flat?

Once an individual allows illusions to become explanations then magic becomes real. Anything and everything can be explained as an illusion. There are no limits and we can't pick and choose. — Rich

Yes, but on what do you base the idea that direct experience cannot be illusory? Clearly, for example, the experience that the Earth is flat is illusory, right? So an experience isn't sufficient to justify and ground what we believe, correct?

I don't mean to suggest everything is illusory, just that some things can be illusory, and we need a way to distinguish between what is illusory and what isn't.

This is why ignore GR and Einstein. Ontology becomes deeply derailed into an experienced of illusion. From this point, everything, including this thread becomes totally pointless. Anything and everything becomes an illusion. — Rich

Not necessarily, all that it would mean is that direct experience would not be sufficient to confirm what is illusory and what is not. For example, if I'm trying to build a satellite system that allows me to locate things around the globe, then I better take the effects of GR into account, even if they seem weird based on my everyday "direct" observations of life. For example, direct observation may indicate to me that the Earth is flat. So I need to do some measurements, make some predictions, etc. to gain access to the experience that the Earth isn't flat.

I take this approach for the same reason the Daoist did, it yields concrete, practical results that I can truly understand and believe in, because I actually experience it. — Rich

Well I too am a practical person, but it depends on what the truth is. Knowledge of the truth is what can truly help you take practical steps.

We all know that some people "have it better" than others in terms of illnesses, bad experiences, suffering experienced etc. — schopenhauer1

The mere fact they have it better, suggests you may have it better too at some point. Who knows? Life is like a box of chocolates - someone told me - you never know what you're going to get >:O

What say you all? — schopenhauer1

You forgot the "what's the big deal?" reaction. In other words, what's the big deal that people have different lives, some with more pleasurable experiences, others with less, etc.?

You seem to presume a priori that everyone should have the same life - that's what it seems that you would expect. Otherwise, if that's not the case, it's unequal, and that's bad!

If one is interested in exploring the nature of life (ontology) then time as experienced becomes primary. — Rich

Again, why? It could be that time as experienced is illusory, Einstein certainly thought so for example. This requires some argument.

As for GR, as a matter of measuring, both twins can view themselves as accelerating away from the other as they take measurements. — Rich

Wouldn't this imply that an accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is at rest? This is precisely what GR denies though - the claim is that they are distinguishable. Meaning each observer can determine who is really accelerating.

Here is an interview with Lee Smolin. In it, he discusses the many problems of time when approaching it from QM and GR. He then goes on to suggest that possibly science had it all wrong and time had primacy over matter (time in this case can be viewed as Bergsin's duration) and the implications on all of science in this were so, e.g. that laws evolve over time. I can't sort out the scientific mess. I can only proceed with direct observation of life and develop a metaphysical ontology based upon these observations. — Rich

Okay thanks for that. Will be watching it.

In the meantime, why do you think the direct observation of life yields knowledge of ontology? What if the direct observation of life is illusory, and hence yields knowledge of an illusion, not really of the way things are?

In the latter case, all they know is that somebody wrote down a claim about something. They have no reason to believe it is true, so they don't know something that they did not know before. Whereas if they hear the voice of God, and they know that it is God speaking, it is reasonable for them to assume that what the voice says is true, so they can learn something new. — andrewk

Right, I expect you to then renounce all scientific truths, because you just read them in some books and don't hear them directly from God. Therefore you have no reason to believe them.

And by the way, something is still a revelation if it's true and you are exposed to it, even if you don't believe it.

Why do you say that no one with a good understanding of physics can disagree with special relativity? According to what you've said here, all one has to disagree with to disagree with SR, is the assumption that light travels at the same speed everywhere. Unless the speed of light has been measured in every possible type of circumstance, then there really is no reason to believe in SR. We can easily fail in our inductive generalizations when we conclude that X is the case in all types of situations, without testing X in all different types of situations. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's no reason to disagree with special relativity for the simple reason that we have never observed light traveling at a different speed anywhere in all our observations so far. It could be possible, but we've just never seen it happen. So there is no reason to doubt SR. A rational person just cannot doubt it.

To philosophers who is interested in penetrating the nature of life, it is this duration that they should be focusing on. — Rich

Why? You have not sketched out yet why this primacy of philosophical time over scientific time.

That physical things are affected by acceleration (applied force) and gravitation is observable and can felt. But this is a far cry from giving equations ontological status as an explanation for lived time. — Rich

The point is that it can't be felt. The clock as such does not feel as if it's slowing down but when compared to the other one it does. So if one person travels close to the speed of light while the other stands still, the one that travels will return younger than the one that stands still. However, the one that travels will not feel like he ages any faster. But when he returns, he will be younger than the other.

So in what sense is this not ontological time if it affects how one ages relative to others?


Regarding the paper, what Smolin is concerned about is the arrow of time, and its irreversibility. According to GR (I think), there's nothing that stops time from going backwards so to speak. It's only the second law of thermodynamics that accounts for why events are irreversible, and why we can't travel backwards in time.

His claim was that time is both real (which means external to him) and
fundamental, hypothesizing that the very laws of physics are not fixed, but evolve over time46. — Rich

What does time being external to him mean? This seems to be precisely what duration isn't, since duration is internal.

And in addition, the hypothesis that the laws of physics are not fixed but evolve with time is very interesting, I too think something like that may be the case, but so far we have no evidence at all for it. It's just a possibility.

My guess is that the physical body will actually perish under such prolonged pressure. Who knows what happens to consciousness. — Rich

This is only if the deceleration is very fast when the rocket turns around. Otherwise, there would be no issue. Furthermore, since everything slows down - including for that matter the synapses in your brain, etc. - you will not perceive that anything has slowed down. To perceive that something slows down would be to presuppose that your internal workings don't slow down while your external environment does - but this isn't what happens. Both of them slow down. Thus in your experience you would not perceive a change.

Privileged means it is the one correct frame. There is no correct accelerated or inertial frame, so none is privileged. Or are you just yanking Rich's chain? — noAxioms

Okay, I did not mean to use privileged in that sense. I meant to use privileged in the sense that the accelerating frame is distinguishable from the one that is at rest in a way that the frame moving at constant speed isn't distinguishable from the one that is at rest.

So you claim. Like I (or rather, Mr Paine) said, hearsay. — andrewk

A revelation has nothing to do with who it is coming from. You seem to think that if someone hears the voice of God, and the other reads the same thing in the Bible, for the latter it is not revelation. It absolutely is, if what is revealed is not known before.

This sounds similar to the claims in the preface of my Quran, which say that the numerological patterns in the surahs, the language etc, are so intricate that they could not have been constructed by any human - hence they must have been written by Allah. — andrewk

His claim was that the Bible was written by stupid and uneducated men and women. That claim, given the text, is absurd, and not even worth debating. It's like claiming that the works of Shakespeare were written by an analphabet.

As Thomas Paine (not an atheist) pointed out, if any text is revelatory, it is only revelatory to the person that witnessed God directly speaking those words. To anybody else, it is just hearsay. — andrewk

A text is revelatory if its meaning shows or points to things that are otherwise hidden. The Biblical text does this.

I never talked about a hidden meaning. I referenced hidden things that are revealed by the Biblical text. That's why other areas - art, science, philosophy etc. - need to be interpreted in the light of Biblical revelation. — Agustino

I am with Sir2u on the issue. The bible is so badly written, with so many infactuals, so many logical impossibilities, that one's hair stands on end when one thinks it has been inspired by a god.

In my private opinion the bible was written by uneducated, stupid men and women, and there is nothing godly about it. It is a badly written book for guidance and knowledge, and that's about the size of it. — szardosszemagad

This opinion is hardly worth even refutation. If you cannot see the intricacies and wisdom of Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, or the Book of Job to name just three books of the Bible - and perceive that these texts could not under any circumstances be written by stupid and uneducated men and women, then you're just deluding yourself.

Yep, funny how ancient human cultures devise similar myths in different regions. Some may have been influenced by others (Israelite traditions definitely influenced by previous Babylonian myths, etc.). Makes you want to read Joseph Campbell! — schopenhauer1

The Biblical story is not a myth. And this isn't only because the Biblical story is true (whereas myths are false), but rather because it serves exactly the opposite function to that of myth. It is true that the Biblical story is dressed in the clothes of myths, but its function is not obfuscation and removal of traces of the founding violence of culture and society - but rather their revelation. This is the reason why the Bible cannot but be inspired by a transcendent God - the Bible cannot come from humans, its source cannot be immanent.

This is only your opinion of what the bible is, how you interpret it. — Sir2u

Sure, if you consider the tree that I see outside to be only my opinion, then you can say this too is only my opinion. :-} The truth is that all Christians have believed this to be so, so whether it's actually true, it certainly isn't "only my opinion". To say it is is to be ridiculous.

Personally I think the bible means to say exactly what it says and anything you add to it as "meaning" is actually a corruption of the original writing. — Sir2u

I don't think you understand exactly what it says, that is precisely the problem. You think this understanding what it says is a straightforward matter that involves just reading the words. That's not true, anymore than you can understand what "Fire!" means just by reading that word.

People that try to find hidden meaning — Sir2u

I never talked about a hidden meaning. I referenced hidden things that are revealed by the Biblical text. That's why other areas - art, science, philosophy etc. - need to be interpreted in the light of Biblical revelation.

They have not got a bloody clue either. — Sir2u

That's your non-expert opinion ;) - to adopt one of your favorite tropes X-)

If I cannot understand any part, on what fulcrum do I lever myself into an understanding of the whole - which apparently is not gained by parts, but only as a whole? — tim wood

A non-question. You don't understand any part of the puzzle, but you do understand how they can fit together, and once every piece is in place suddenly - insight strikes - you get the meaning.

And closer to the point, it would appear you argue that the Bible (perhaps all books) are more than the some of the parts - the words. — tim wood

Yep, just like a puzzle. And meaning is always more than the sum of the words. Meaning isn't the same as the words, I think you understand that. The meaning of "fire" isn't the letters that compose the word. That's why the same meanings can sometimes be conveyed by very different words. The letters have no intrinsic/necessary connection to the meaning. Neither do the words for that matter.

I agree that understanding can vary, but whoever understood the whole? — tim wood

Many people, most Christians for example.

Some people claim these are God's words — tim wood

No Christian claims they are the words of God. The Bible is divinely inspired, not written by God like the Qu'ran claims to be. So I think you're confusing two different claims.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This text is well-known. As to what it says, I think it's reasonably transparent. — tim wood

Yep, but again, to break everything into pieces and analyze them separately is to fail to see the meaning of the whole. You asked what is the meaning of the Word of God? A short answer for that is Christ. But yet, you cannot find Christ by looking atomically at each individual sentence extracted from its context. You must look at the overarching meaning of the entire narrative.

Analysing each book of the Bible separately will reveal different and separate meanings in addition to the role they play in the overarching narrative. However, the Biblical text is revelatory - its aim is to reveal many things that are hidden. That's part of what makes the Bible different than any other text in history - and that's what makes it the most influential narrative in history, by far.

Interpretation, on the other hand, adds to or counters the text, either or both. In short, interpretation makes (the) text something other than it is. — tim wood

That doesn't follow. Interpretation is the process by which the meaning of the text is understood.

It's like the Protestants bitching about the Catholics doing away with the Latin Mass. Or the lapsed Catholics complaining that the priests are not doing the folk liturgy in the right way, or yes, atheists worrying about the interpretation of scriptures. — Bitter Crank

Most of these Christians do not disagree about the general meaning of the Word of God though. I think if you look carefully you'd be surprised.

But you imply an understanding of a meaning that's lacking, probably, in some people. What meaning is that? — tim wood

You have to follow the Biblical story from beginning to end. Without understanding the whole, you cannot understand the part. You have to look at the entire picture that is painted. The Bible is like a puzzle - if you look at pieces separately, you won't be able to distinguish the real meaning. And then you must also understand the Judaic culture in which the Bible was written. This is a very good resource:

What is at rest? — Rich

Not in an accelerated frame of reference.

The equations include some really strange definition of time that had nothing to do with clock time as we know it. It's called curved space-time and shouldn't be confused with clock time. It's its own beast. — Rich

Yes, spacetime does have to do with clock time. It explains that clocks move slower in certain regions of space and even allows us to calculate how much slower.

For example, atomic clocks are shown to slow down when flown around the Earth compared to those that remain on Earth. And the accuracy is amazing - it's something like one-billionth of a second.

It's funny how all the insecure atheists jump in here to add their vote to the ballot that it's not the Word of God, without probably understanding what that even means :P

Who knows? As I said, as far as GR is concerned each can be considered accelerating relative to each other. — Rich

That's false. According to GR, the accelerating reference frame is privileged. In an accelerating reference frame it can be distinguished who is at rest and who is accelerating. In an inertial reference frame it cannot be distinguished who is at rest or who is moving.

The equations should be reciprocal. — Rich

As I said, that's not true. Remember what the first assumption of SR is - laws of physics are the same for all observers in inertial reference frames. Accelerating reference frames are NOT inertial.

Who knows? — Rich

Well, I think this is by this point beyond doubt. We've seen atomic clocks slow down, that's more than enough evidence that the predictions of SR/GR with regards to time dilation hold true.

The equations do not identify which twin is to be considered accelerating. — Rich

No, you cannot use the equations in a way which disagrees with the assumptions from which the equations are derived in the first place. One assumption of GR, which is used to derive the equations is that accelerating reference frames can be distinguished from those that are at rest.

how does the word of God come to fall under any interpretation at all? If the words in a given sequence of words are intelligible - understandable – how do you get past that to something else and preserve the qualification? — tim wood

I don't understand your question. Any text, regardless of what it is, must be interpreted. Even a simple command such as "Fire!" must be interpreted. It could mean a series of different things. Words are symbolic, and the meaning(s) they hold vary according to how they are used, the context, the culture, etc. To get at the meaning of any text you have to interpret it. So to perceive the meaning of the Word of God you have to interpret it. There's no problem here.

No one should she differently each can be considered accelerating relative to reach other. However, there may be biological effects as a result of the actual real duration of acceleration. In other words, there may be real effects but independent of Relativity which assumes no privileged frame of reference. — Rich

Will the one who travels close to the speed of light be younger than the other one upon his return? I don't care what theory you consider when answering this question, but please answer with yes or no.

Relativity which assumes no privileged frame of reference. — Rich

An accelerating frame of reference is privileged. Only inertial frames of reference aren't.

Scientific time is measurement of simultaneous events. It is not the duration of experience which is heterogeneous and continuous. It is there essence of Zeno's paradoxes. Duration is indivisible.

The only way to observe the duration of life is by closing one's eyes and directly experience it. One can also mediate, practice Tai Chi or yoga to get an even deeper understanding. — Rich

Okay, I'm not going to dispute that, at least not now, but I've asked you something different apart from that.

And would you agree that if I take a man and fly him close to the speed of light he will age slower than one that remains on Earth? And if so, then some of the effects of GR/SR are ontological no? They're not just measurement effects. I mean we can't presume both start as babies, and one reaches old age, while the other is still in his teens and then claim that it's just a measurement effect and not ontological right? — Agustino

The problem is that SR is only applicable to inertial frames which doesn't exist (except as an approximation), so SR had no relevance to any discussion about light or scientific time (my distinction,). Only GR is relevant. Under GR, scientific time becomes relative. — Rich

What counts as scientific time?

And would you agree that if I take a man and fly him close to the speed of light he will age slower than one that remains on Earth? And if so, then some of the effects of GR/SR are ontological no? They're not just measurement effects. I mean we can't presume both start as babies, and one reaches old age, while the other is still in his teens and then claim that it's just a measurement effect and not ontological right?

These time dilation effects have been experienced with muons and with atomic clocks already.

Read René Girard and quit philosophy >:)

"Since the attempt to understand religion on the basis of philosophy has failed, we ought to try the reverse method and read philosophy in the light of religion"