Re: Why atheists believe in a universe capable of Judgment and

Did anyone else get this email with formatting errors? Unfortunately I cant
read it becuase of this. If you got this email with no formatting problems
could you forward me a copy? I would like to read this.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:18 PM
Subject: Why atheists believe in a universe capable of Judgment and

> Prophecy
> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:42:10 -0500
> Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> Precedence: bulk
>
> This didn=E2=80=99t go through yesterday. I return to Beijing
> tomorrow =
> so won=E2=80=99t be able to discuss until Saturday. Thanks to
> everyone =
> for their prayers and concern, we don=E2=80=99t know what my wife has =
> but it doesn=E2=80=99t appear to be cancer. =20
>
> =20
>
> Why Atheists Believe in Eternal Judgment and Prophecy and
> Don=E2=80=99t =
> Even Know It. =20
>
> By Glenn R. Morton June, 2005
>
> =20
>
> 'I do not mean to ask you to accept anything without reasonable ground =
> for it. You will soon admit as much as I need from you. You know of =
> course that a mathematical line, a line of thickness nil, has no real =
> existence. They taught you that? Neither has a mathematical plane.
> These =
> things are mere abstractions.'
>
> 'That is all right,' said the Psychologist.
>
> 'Nor, having only length, breadth, and thickness, can a cube have a
> real =
> existence.'
>
> 'There I object,' said Filby. 'Of course a solid body may exist. All =
> real things - '
>
> 'So most people think. But wait a moment. Can an instantaneous cube =
> exist?'
>
> 'Don't follow you,' said Filby.
>
> 'Can a cube that does not last for any time at all, have a real =
> existence?'=E2=80=9D=20
>
> (Wells, 1895, chapter 1)
>
> =20
>
> Thus starts H. G. Well=E2=80=99s the Time Machine. The question he
> asks =
> gets to the heart of existence. Existence means or implies, a temporal =
> duration. Without that, one can=E2=80=99t actually exist, or so it =
> seems. As discussed in the last post, the existence of the universe
> is a =
> permanent gap in our understanding. In principle, the =
> universe=E2=80=99s existence will never really be explained apart from =
> positing god-like properties and/or powers to the universe or some =
> constituent of the universe. =20
>
> =20
>
> In 1949, Kurt Godel presented a novel solution to Einstein=E2=80=99s =
> gravitational equations. The solution he presented is now known as =
> Godel=E2=80=99s universe and it has profound implications to the =
> science/theology debate. Godel=E2=80=99s paper, presented in a book
> in =
> honor of Einstein, argued that time does not exist. He argued that
> time =
> is an ideal, not real. Time is an illusion. His paper was met with =
> silence, some say because he was an outsider to relativity and an =
> outsider to philosophy. One will find occasional references to his
> work =
> in the relativistic literature but only to say that in rotating =
> universes there are closed time-like paths(i.e. time travel is =
> possible). Whatever the reason for the previous silence, his paper
> has =
> drawn much more interest in the past 10 years, due mainly to the
> efforts =
> of Palle Yourgrau, a philosopher at Brandeis University.
> Godel=E2=80=99s =
> argument has much to say about the nature of time and is worth
> hearing. =
> I will bring out some theological implications from this work.
>
> =20
>
> The main point in writing this article is to show that if one follows
> a =
> reductionist path, one is forced into believing that the universe is
> one =
> which would allow things like prophecy and judgment, things which the =
> secular world would rather omit from consideration. =20
>
> =20
>
> The technical details of Godel=E2=80=99s bizarre universe is outlined
> by =
> Deser and Jackiw(1992) and can be found below the references. The
> main =
> item we need to pay attention to is that with a particular arrangement =
> of matter in the universe, time travel is possible. Technically, there =
> are closed time-like curves.
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> What are the implications of a closed time-like curves? Well, it means =
> that a person can travel into his past in such a universe. Clearly
> this =
> implies all sorts of acausal paradoxes=E2=80=94things like killing
> your =
> grandmother before your mother was born. If you succeed, then you are =
> not born and could not travel back into the past to kill her so she =
> didn=E2=80=99t die and you were born. Most people who believe time =
> travel is physically possible think that one can only do that which is =
> logically possible to do thus ruling out killing granny. Most
> physicists =
> have rejected Godel=E2=80=99s universe because the mass distribution
> he =
> assumed is not observed in our universe. Thus, most have ignored =
> Godel=E2=80=99s Universe and its implications. More on this below,
> but =
> suffice it to say that Godel=E2=80=99s argument includes arguments for =
> the applicability to our world.
>
> =20
>
> I will use Dorato=E2=80=99s reconstruction of the argument, which in =
> outline is:
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9C(0) Time is real only if change is real.
>
> (1) Change is real only if there exists an objective lapse of time. =
> =C2=ABchange becomes possible only through the lapse of time=C2=BB =
> (1949a, p. 558/1990, p. 202)
>
> (2) Time is real only if there exists an objective lapse of time [from =
> (0) and (1)]
>
> (3) =C2=ABThe existence of an objective lapse of time means or at
> least =
> is equivalent to the fact, that reality consists of an infinity of =
> layers of =E2=80=9Cnow=E2=80=9D which come into existence =
> successively=C2=BB (1949a, p. 558/1990, p. 202).
>
> (4) Reality consist of an infinity of layers of =E2=80=9Cnow=E2=80=9D =
> which come into existence successively only if spacetime admits of a =
> global time function (cosmic time).
>
> (5) Time is real only if spacetime admits of a global time function =
> [from (2), (3) (4)]
>
> (6) G=C3=B6del=E2=80=99s rotating-model M, qua solution to =
> Einstein=E2=80=99s field equations, is a physically possible model,
> and =
> despite the presence of closed timelike curves (circular time) and =
> looming grandfather paradoxes, cannot be ruled out a priori.
>
> (7) Since for every x in M, x chronologically precedes itself, M does =
> not possess a global time function.
>
> (8) In the physically possible world M, time is ideal [from (5) (6) =
> (7)]=E2=80=9D
>
> (9) The main, contingent, non-lawlike difference between M and our =
> universe is given by the (probable) absence of a net rotation of
> matter, =
> which implies the existence of cosmic time in our world.=E2=80=9D =
> (Dorato, 2001)
>
> =20
>
> [the references 1949a are to Godel 1949 in this paper]
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> Let=E2=80=99s look at each step in the argument closely.
>
> =20
>
> (0) Time is real only if change is real.
>
> =20
>
> (1) Change is real only if there exists an objective lapse of time. =
> =C2=ABchange becomes possible only through the lapse of time=C2=BB =
> (1949a, p. 558/1990, p. 202)
>
> =20
>
> The objections to these two assumptions is that it implies absolute =
> change. It has also been objected that this appears to be the =
> constantly moving =E2=80=98now=E2=80=99 concept and this is a view
> which =
> philosophers seem to have rejected. The way to interpret these two =
> assumptions within Godel=E2=80=99s argument is that at time t certain =
> events exist and at time t=E2=80=99 later than t, other events exist =
> mind-independently. In other words, this implies that there is an =
> objectiveness to the passage of time.
>
> =20
>
> (2) Time is real only if there exists an objective lapse of time [from =
> (0) and (1)] (Dorato, 2001).
>
> =20
>
> This conclusion is logically deduced from the first two. =20
>
> =20
>
> Readers will object that special relativity shows that there is no =
> objective or global time but we still intuitively feel the passage of =
> time, i.e. the present flowage of time into the existing present then =
> into past. Godel is ready for that objection.
>
> =20
>
> (3) =C2=ABThe existence of an objective lapse of time means or at
> least =
> is equivalent to the fact, that reality consists of an infinity of =
> layers of =E2=80=9Cnow=E2=80=9D which come into existence =
> successively=C2=BB (1949a, p. 558/1990, p. 202).
>
> (4) Reality consist of an infinity of layers of =E2=80=9Cnow=E2=80=9D =
> which come into existence successively only if spacetime admits of a =
> global time function (cosmic time).
>
> (5) Time is real only if spacetime admits of a global time function =
> [from (2), (3) (4)](Dorato 2001)
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> Step 3 is an acknowledgement of McTaggart=E2=80=99s A-series. One can
> go =
> to J. M. E. McTaggart=E2=80=99s 1908 article in which he argues for
> the =
> ideality of time to see why time can=E2=80=99t be real if the world is =
> governed by special relativity. McTaggart defined the A-series, the =
> B-series. The B-series is a formal, geometricized time scale. 1776 =
> will forever be after 2005, but 2005 will always be before 2006. The =
> A-series is the ever present now, that dynamic present moment. Points =
> come into existence during the now and go out of existence into the =
> past. The point in step 4 concerns the need for each moment to =
> =E2=80=98come into existence=E2=80=99. This is the intuitive =
> understanding of time in which the future does not yet exist. =20
>
> =20
>
> McTaggart, who notes that Kant, Spinoza, Hegel and Schopenaur believed =
> in an idealized time, argued for an idealized time based upon the =
> incompatibility of the A-series and the B-series.
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CIt would, I suppose, be universally admitted that time =
> involves change. A particular thing, indeed, may exist unchanged
> through =
> any amount of time. But when we ask what we mean by saying that there =
> were different moments of time, or a certain duration of time, through =
> which the thing was the same, we find that we mean that it remained
> the =
> same while other things were changing. A universe in which nothing =
> whatever changed (including the thoughts of the conscious beings in
> it) =
> would be a timeless universe.=E2=80=9D=20
> =E2=80=9CIf, then, a B series without an A series can
> constitute =
> time, change must be possible without an A series. Let us suppose that =
> the distinction of past, present and future does not apply to reality. =
> Can change apply to reality? What is it that changes?=E2=80=9D
> =E2=80=9CCould we say that, in a time which formed a B series
> but =
> not an A series, the change consisted in the fact that an event ceased =
> to be an event, while another event began to be an event? If this were =
> the case, we should certainly have got a change. =E2=80=9C
> =E2=80=9CBut this is impossible. An event can never cease to
> be an =
> event. It can never get out of any time series in which it once =
> is.=E2=80=9D (McTaggart, 1908)
>
> He then says:
>
> =E2=80=9CNeither can the change be looked for in the numerically =
> different moments of absolute time, supposing such moments to exist.
> For =
> the same arguments will apply here. Each such moment would have its
> own =
> place in the B series, since each would be earlier or later than each
> of =
> the others. And as the B series indicate permanent relations, no
> moment =
> could ever cease to be, nor could it become another moment.=E2=80=9D =
> (McTaggart, 1908)
>
> Once again, McTaggart=E2=80=99s line of reasoning leads him to believe =
> that moments can not cease to be.
>
> The deduction that there is need for a global time function would rule =
> out the compatibility of intuitive time with special relativity (step
> 5) =
> as Godel argues. He says that the A-series, the intuitive flow of
> time, =
> can not be real if special relativity is true.=20
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CThe opening move concerns the more limited special theory of =
> relativity. Given that the A-series contains the flux of =
> =E2=80=98now,=E2=80=99 the absence of an objective, worldwide "now" in =
> special relativity rules out its ex=C2=ADistence. But absent the =
> A-series there is no intuitive time. What remains, formal time as =
> represented by the little "t" of Einstein-Minkowski space-time, cannot =
> be identified with the intuitive time of everyday ex=C2=ADperience.
> The =
> conclusion, for Godel, is inescapable: if relativity theory is valid, =
> intuitive time disappears.=E2=80=9D (Yourgrau, 2005, p. 128-129)
>
> =20
>
> To re-iterate, if everyone has a different flow of time (something
> true =
> in special relativity) and there is no formal, global time, time
> becomes =
> entirely subjective and ideal. Another way of looking at this is that =
> the A-series views future events as not yet existing, and past events =
> and no longer existing. Only the present exists. Future events come =
> into existence and then disappear into the past. This is incompatible =
> with special relativity and mind-independent objective time since two =
> observers will have different perceptions of what exists and what =
> doesn=E2=80=99t. And this is where Godel brings down the hammer. He =
> says, =E2=80=9CThe concept of existence (...) cannot be relativized =
> without destroying its meaning completely.=E2=80=9D (Godel,1949, p. =
> 559)
>
> =20
>
> A moment of reality can not exist and not exist at the same time, and =
> still retain the concept of existence. This is true as long as one =
> accepts the concept that A and Not A are a contradictory. This is not =
> the same as A plus Not A, which is a quantum mechanical statement of =
> superposition.
>
> =20
>
> Godel then reminds the reader that Special Relativity is just
> that, =
> special. It does not include accelerations. In General Relativity, a =
> type of global time is allowed. It is the time of the clocks which
> are =
> co-moving with the average matter content of the universe(Peebles,
> 1993, =
> p. 112 note). This =E2=80=98global time=E2=80=99 is a good candidate =
> for an objective time that Godel is looking for. However, Godel has a =
> surprise in store.
>
> =20
>
> (6) G=C3=B6del=E2=80=99s rotating-model M, qua solution to =
> Einstein=E2=80=99s field equations, is a physically possible model,
> and =
> despite the presence of closed timelike curves (circular time) and =
> looming grandfather paradoxes, cannot be ruled out a priori.
>
> (7) Since for every x in M, x chronologically precedes itself, M does =
> not possess a global time function.
>
> (8) In the physically possible world M, time is ideal [from (5) (6) =
> (7)]=E2=80=9D (Dorato, 2001)
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> Einstein presented a view of the world in which space-time is fully =
> geometricized=E2=80=94the block universe, in which all events appear
> as =
> points in such a universe. Duration appears as lines moving through
> the =
> block. The paths through the block are subject to the mass
> distribution =
> in the universe. And this is where Godel pulls out his surprise.
> Godel =
> showed that if you had a rotating universe, that there would be closed =
> time-like curves. If you are on one of these closed timelike paths,
> you =
> can travel forward in time but meet yourself in your past. In Godels =
> universe, he showed how a rocket with a certain acceleration could =
> enable one to travel back to the past and meet himself at an earlier =
> time. Such a pathological universe was generally greeted by silence
> on =
> the part of philosophers and physicists. =20
>
> =20
>
> Godel then argued that if one can visit himself in the past, the past =
> has not really disappeared. After all, if you can visit New Jersey, =
> then New Jersey must exist. And this brings into question the reality
> of =
> the A-series, in McTaggart=E2=80=99s terminology. We think the past
> no =
> longer exists and the future doesn=E2=80=99t exist yet. But if you =
> appear from the future to tell yourself some trivial piece of =
> information (like what stocks to buy) it also means that the future =
> actually exists. It isn=E2=80=99t that great undetermined thing that
> we =
> normally think it is. Yourgrau writes:
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CBut if it is possible in such worlds, Godel argues, to return =
> to one's past, then what was past never passed at all. But a time that =
> never truly passes cannot pass for real, intuitive time. The reality
> of =
> time travel in the Godel universe signals the unreality of time. Once =
> again, time disappears.=E2=80=9D (Yourgrau, 2005, p. 129-130)
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> The physicists rejected the universe as being =
> =E2=80=98unphysical=E2=80=99. Our universe does not seem to be
> rotating. =
> Godel=E2=80=99s distribution of matter also required that the
> galaxies =
> stay rigidly separated, neither expanding or contracting towards each =
> other.=20
>
> =20
>
> Godel would counter argue that the physical reality of his mass =
> distribution is not of importance in determining the truth or falsity
> of =
> what he says about time:
>
> =20
>
> (9) The main, contingent, non-lawlike difference between M and our =
> universe is given by the (probable) absence of a net rotation of
> matter, =
> which implies the existence of cosmic time in our world.=E2=80=9D =
> (Dorato, 2001)
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> Afterall, he used the very same natural laws which govern our
> universe. =
> The only difference between Godel=E2=80=99s universe and ours is a =
> contingency in the distribution of matter=E2=80=94e.g. an accident in =
> how matter is arranged. I would suggest it would be like saying that =
> just because all the roads to New Jersey have been destroyed =
> doesn=E2=80=99t mean that New Jersey doesn=E2=80=99t exist. You may
> not =
> be able to visit it, but that is merely an accident due to the fact
> that =
> no roads are left in tact. Similarly, the fact that we can=E2=80=99t =
> visit the past in our universe is merely an accident of the
> distribution =
> of matter. However, as we shall see, we very well might be able to
> visit =
> New Jersey.
>
> =20
>
> Monday, I read a marvelous book by Richard Gott, called Time Travel
> in =
> Einstein=E2=80=99s Universe. He outlines several methods of time
> travel =
> in our universe assuming that there are cosmic strings and there is
> some =
> evidence for their existence.
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CThe mysterious gamma rays that emanate from the central bulge =
> of our galaxy could arise from a seething tangle of =E2=80=98cosmic =
> strings=E2=80=99.=E2=80=9D (anonymous, 2005, p. 16)=20
>
> =20
>
> While that is a possible tangle of strings, if you have two strings =
> moving past each other at rapid velocities Deser and Jackiw (1992) =
> state:
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CThe reason for current interest in time travel ideas derives =
> from the recent realization that infinitely long and arbitrarily thin =
> cosmic strings can support closed time-like curves.=E2=80=9D
>
> =20
>
> Gott states,
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CTo allow time travel to the past, cosmic strings with a =
> mass-per-unit length of about 10 million billion tons per centimeter =
> must each move in opposite directions at speeds of at least
> 99.999999996 =
> percent the speed of light. We have observed high-energy protons in
> the =
> universe moving at least this fast, so such speeds are =
> possible.=E2=80=9D (Gott, 2001, p. 104)
>
> =20
>
> And Tipler has a solution which allows time travel in our universe:
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CFrank Tipler, now at Tulane University, found that if you
> have =
> an infinitely tall cylinder rotating at nearly the speed of light on
> its =
> surface, you could go back in time by flying around the cylinder. This =
> solution is reminiscent of mine, with the two infinite cosmic strings =
> passing each other.=E2=80=9D(Gott, 2001, p. 117)
>
> =20
>
> There is one more interesting counter argument to Godel=E2=80=99s =
> possible universe. If the multiverse is true, then Godel=E2=80=99s =
> universe is not merely a possible universe, it is a real universe =
> somewhere in the multiverse. There are only 2^(10^118) (Tegmark,
> 2003, =
> p. 42) different ways to arrange matter in a universe the size of our =
> observable universe. If the multiverse consists of all possible =
> universes (as Hawking=E2=80=99s wave equation of the universe would =
> include all possible universes(Kaku, 1994, p. 254), and that should =
> include Godel=E2=80=99s universe, making it a real item.=20
>
> =20
>
> Today we know of many arrangements of matter which will allow time =
> travel in our universe with our distribution of matter, and this has =
> theological implications. We CAN visit New Jersy. These time machine =
> solutions mean that the past isn=E2=80=99t non-existent. It also
> means =
> that the future isn=E2=80=99t non-existent. It means that our
> intuitive =
> time, the A-series, in which past and future are non-existent is not =
> real as McTaggart argued in 1908. And that has implications to whether =
> or not there is real change in the universe as opposed to perceived =
> change. And as McTaggart says:
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CNeither can the change be looked for in the numerically =
> different moments of absolute time, supposing such moments to exist.
> For =
> the same arguments will apply here. Each such moment would have its
> own =
> place in the B series, since each would be earlier or later than each
> of =
> the others. And as the B series indicate permanent relations, no
> moment =
> could ever cease to be, nor could it become another moment.=E2=80=9D =
> (McTaggart, 1908)
>
> =20
>
> And
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CWithout the A series then, there would be no change,
> and =
> consequently the B series by itself is not sufficient for time, since =
> time involves change.=E2=80=9D (McTaggart 1908)
>
> =20
>
> Consider the implications of this for chance. A physicist travels back =
> into the past to visit his aging father again before he died 10 years =
> ago. Ten years ago he had set up an experiment to observe virtual =
> particles via the Lamb-Retherford shift. Before going to see his =
> father, he stops by the office to check the experiment. If he is =
> actually in the past, the jitters of the electron circling the
> hydrogen =
> atom should be the same, the very same in this past as it was 10 years =
> ago when he performed the experiment. The only difference is that
> this =
> time he feels he is the guy walking in the door to see himself
> standing =
> over the equipment instead of being the guy who was standing over the =
> equipment seeing himself walk in. To visit the actual past means that =
> virtual particles, those paragons of random chance, can=E2=80=99t =
> possibly be random at all but are fixed into the block universe of the =
> B-series=E2=80=94the 4D manifold of General Relativity. Time travel =
> destroys chance being anything other than the illusion of chance like =
> that we get from most random number generators in our computers. Like =
> the output from the old GWBasic language where one could get the same =
> =E2=80=98random=E2=80=99 sequence time and time again by specifying
> the =
> same seed number, the universe would yield the same pattern of virtual =
> particles every time you visited your aging father in the past.
>
> =20
>
> Well if chance dies in the block universe, then determinism reins,
> only =
> we don=E2=80=99t know what is determined. We live in the A-series and =
> can=E2=80=99t look at the B-series. But God can. That means that =
> prophecy is allowed because God=E2=80=99s laws, the laws which allow =
> time travel, allow Him to know what the future holds. And more than =
> that, such a block universe would absolutely mean that judgement can =
> occur. If you stand before the divine being who is looking at your
> life =
> and you object that you were really a good guy and didn=E2=80=99t
> murder =
> 487 people, God can give you a glimpse of your timeline, effectively =
> giving a trial by replay for your benefit.
>
> =20
>
> What does this do to free will? Clearly this is where everyone will =
> complain. Indeed, I don=E2=80=99t like this aspect of Godel=E2=80=99s =
> argument. Free will is a form of intentionality and physics has
> little =
> to say about how that arises:
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CIn the hierarchy of complexity, each level links to the one =
> above: chemistry links to biochemistry, to cell biology, physiology, =
> psychology, to sociology, economics and politics. Particle physics is =
> the foundational subject underlying=E2=80=94and so in some sense =
> explaining=E2=80=94all the others. In a reductionist world view,
> physics =
> is all there is. The Cartesian picture of man as a machine seems to be =
> vindicated.
> =E2=80=9CBut this view omits important aspects of the world that =
> physics has yet to come to terms with. Our environment is dominated by =
> objects that embody the outcomes of intentional design (buildings,
> books =
> computers, teaspoons). Today=E2=80=99s physics has nothing to say
> about =
> the intentionality that has resulted in the existence of such objects, =
> even though this intentionality is clearly causally
> effective.=E2=80=9D =
> (Ellis, 2005, p. 743.)
>
> But, this is not what one usually means by the term intentionality.
> In =
> the block view of the universe one could give a reductionist view of =
> intentionality. The very electrons in our brains would be determined =
> and (yes this is physicalism) thus our thoughts. For those who =
> don=E2=80=99t think that our thoughts are determined by our brains,
> look =
> what happens to someone whose brain is scrambled by some horrible =
> accident. Their thoughts get scrambled as well.
>
> How are we held accountable? I don=E2=80=99t know. Godel=E2=80=99s =
> argument for the existence of time travel seems to preclude free
> will. =
> I can think of two ways this might not be. First if, as Hawking has =
> suggested, quantum considerations rule out time travel. This is often =
> called the Chronology protection conjecture. Hawking claimed that the =
> vacuum would always blow up creating a singularity as you approached
> an =
> area of the space time which would allow time travel. The biggest =
> complaint against this is that it seems to be ad hoc.
>
> Secondly, one might be able to avoid this conundrum when the full =
> quantum mechanical gravitation is finally developed.
>
> Thirdly, Dorato (2001) believes that Godel failed in proving the =
> ideality of time. That being said, I find his objections to be weak.
> He =
> denies the postulate that one can=E2=80=99t relativize existence.
> But, =
> if he is right, then one can get out of Godel=E2=80=99s argument, but =
> maybe not out of the fact that both future and past must still exist
> if =
> time travel is to be considered a physical possibility given =
> Einstein=E2=80=99s equations.
>
> Now, before people misunderstand the reason I am writing this (I am
> sure =
> people will write responses before getting to this place in the text)
> I =
> am writing primarily to suggest to the atheist that if they do engage
> in =
> reductionism, they end up with a universe which is quite capable of =
> things like prophecy and eternal judgment, qualities which they deny.
> My =
> personal reasoning was that I finally got tired of being looked upon
> as =
> the village idiot by atheists, who think they are oh so intellectual, =
> and yet they don=E2=80=99t realize that they must have something as
> the =
> creator of the universe and that if they are logically consistent in =
> believing science, they end up with a universe capable of all the
> things =
> the theist says.=20
>
> Do I believe in a totally reductionist universe? No, of course not.
> Do I =
> believe that all my actions are determined? No, but I believe this in =
> spite of the line of logic above. My belief isn=E2=80=99t science; my =
> belief is faith. I will defend the line of logic, but I will not
> defend =
> the view and I would appreciate the responders remembering this =
> distinction. The views are not something that I am advocating but =
> something I am trying to say that one must hold if one is a radical =
> reductionist. In general, atheism holds to a radical reductionism.
>
> =20
>
> References.=20
>
> =20
>
> Anonymous, 2005. =E2=80=9CMystery Rays Could Be Sign of Cosmic =
> Strings,=E2=80=9D New Scientist, June 4, 2005
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> Deser, S. and Jackiw, R., 1992. =E2=80=9CTIME TRAVEL?=E2=80=9D
> Extended =
> version of talk presented at =E2=80=9846 LNS 46 Cambridge, MA,May
> 1992=20
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9206/9206094.pdf
>
> =20
>
> Dorato, Mauro 2001 =E2=80=9CON BECOMING, COSMIC TIME AND ROTATING =
> UNIVERSES,=E2=80=9D Forthcoming in C. Callender (ed.), Time, Reality
> and =
> Experience (provisional title), Royal Institute of Philosophy Series, =
> Cambridge University Press, 2001) =
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000150/00/becoming.pdf
>
> =20
>
> Ellis, George F. R., 2005. =E2=80=9CPhysics, Complexity and =
> Causality,=E2=80=9D Nature, 435:(June 9):743
>
> =20
>
> Godel, Kurt, 1949. =E2=80=9CA Remark about the Relationshiip Between =
> Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy, in P. A. Schilp, ed.
> Albert =
> Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (La Salle, Il: Open Court). p. 557-562
>
> =20
>
> Gott, Richard, 2001. Time Travel in Einstein=E2=80=99s Universe, (New =
> York: Houghton Mifflin Co.)
>
> =20
>
> Kaku, Michio, 1994, Hyperspace, (New York: Anchor Books).
>
> =20
>
> McTaggart, John Ellis, 1908. =E2=80=9CThe Unreality of Time, Mind: A =
> Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, 17:456-473. =
> http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html
>
> =20
>
> Peebles, P. J. E. 1993. Principles of Physical Cosmology, (Princeton: =
> Princeton University Press)
>
> Max Tegmark, 2003 =E2=80=9CParallel Universes,=E2=80=9D Scientific =
> American, May.
>
> =20
>
> H. G. Wells, The Time Machine, 1895=20
>
> =20
>
> Yourgrau, Palle, 2005. A World Without Time, (New York: Perseus Books).
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> Godel=E2=80=99s Universe
>
> =20
>
> =E2=80=9CGodel took T[mu,nu] to be a space-time constant, not
> vanishing =
> only in its time-time component (energy density),
>
> =20
>
> T[infinity] =3Dc^4/8=CF=80G > 0 . (5)
>
> =20
>
> The metric tensor that then solves Einstein=E2=80=99s equations leads
> to =
> the space-time interval
>
> =20
>
> ds^2 =3D g[mu,nu] dx^[mu] dx^[nu]=20
>
> =20
>
> =3D {cdt =E2=88=92 =E2=88=9A2/[Lambda] (cosh=E2=88=9A[Lambda]r =
> =E2=88=92 1)d[theta]}^2 =E2=88=92 dr^2 =E2=88=92 1/[Lambda] sinh^2 =
> =E2=88=9A[Lambda]r d[theta]^2 =E2=88=92 dz^2 , (6)
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> where r, [theta] are planar circular coordinates, with [theta] =3D 0
> and =
> 2[pi] identified, and there is no interesting structure in the =
> z-direction. A curve x^[mu](=CF=84) is closed and time-like if both =
> x=C2=B5(0) =3D x^[mu](1) (closed) and (ds/d=CF=84)^2 =3D g=C2=B5=CE=BD =
> (dx^[mu]/d=CF=84) (dx^[nu]/d=CF=84) > 0 (time-like). It is therefore =
> clear that a circular path in the Godel universe for which t, r and z =
> remain constant, while [theta] varies from 0 to 2[pi], is closed and =
> time-like provided cosh=E2=88=9A[Lambda]r > 3, i.e., r > =
> 2/=E2=88=9A[Lambda] ln(1 + =E2=88=9A2 ).=E2=80=9D (Deser & Jackiw,1992)
>
> =20
>
> If you hold t,r, and z constant, dt, dr and dz go to zero and all you =
> have left is the d[theta] terms. Setting ds^2 =3D 0 and solving for r =
> yields the answer in the above citation.
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
Received on Sat Jun 25 12:29:37 2005