Might a fourth dimension be a divinely-ordered possibility?
The Park Taylor theorem proposes that spacetime is just a user interface and not an accurate description of reality.
Combine that with St. Paul's assertion that 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him' (1 Cor. 2:9) and you have a good argument for the possibility of a divinely ordered fourth dimension.
"Might a fourth dimension be a divinely-ordered possibility?...Combine that with St. Paul's assertion that 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him' (1 Cor. 2:9) and you have a good argument for the possibility of a divinely ordered fourth dimension."
Of course, but with qualifications. As you know, there are two major threads to these essays:
1) All of creation is divinely ordered, whether it is explained by science or not.
2) Everything in our universe is in principle testable by science, which methodologically must exclude divine causes. A fourth dimension is not in our universe and so is not directly subject to the scientific method. Now, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor does it mean hypotheticals about it are pseudoscientific, because we can scientifically infer it might exist.
St. Paul's statement is going to have even more bearing on tomorrow's essay.
My recollection is that Brett Hall discussed it on a podcast with Naval Ravikant. Perhaps I got the names wrong.
It's also called the "interface theory of perception" and uses the metaphor of a computer desktop. When we see the icon of a button on our desktop we know there isn't a physical button on the glass, but we do know what will happen if we press it. Similarly we perceive everything through our senses. Our senses have evolved to perceive things in a way that promotes our survival, which is not necessarily the same as perceiving reality with a high degree of accuracy. So take your senses seriously, just don't take them literally.
Donald D. Hoffman's "The Case Against Reality" goes in depth on this.
I can also cite David Deutsch's book "The Fabric of Reality" where he notes "..we never experience reality directly. All reasoning, all thinking, all external experiences are forms of virtual reality. This rendering of our environment is how we survive."
Might a fourth dimension be a divinely-ordered possibility?
The Park Taylor theorem proposes that spacetime is just a user interface and not an accurate description of reality.
Combine that with St. Paul's assertion that 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him' (1 Cor. 2:9) and you have a good argument for the possibility of a divinely ordered fourth dimension.
"Might a fourth dimension be a divinely-ordered possibility?...Combine that with St. Paul's assertion that 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him' (1 Cor. 2:9) and you have a good argument for the possibility of a divinely ordered fourth dimension."
Of course, but with qualifications. As you know, there are two major threads to these essays:
1) All of creation is divinely ordered, whether it is explained by science or not.
2) Everything in our universe is in principle testable by science, which methodologically must exclude divine causes. A fourth dimension is not in our universe and so is not directly subject to the scientific method. Now, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor does it mean hypotheticals about it are pseudoscientific, because we can scientifically infer it might exist.
St. Paul's statement is going to have even more bearing on tomorrow's essay.
"The Park Taylor theorem proposes that spacetime is just a user interface and not an accurate description of reality."
I am not familiar with this and my web search came up empty. There are Parke-Taylor amplitudes that involve gluons. Please elaborate my friend.
My recollection is that Brett Hall discussed it on a podcast with Naval Ravikant. Perhaps I got the names wrong.
It's also called the "interface theory of perception" and uses the metaphor of a computer desktop. When we see the icon of a button on our desktop we know there isn't a physical button on the glass, but we do know what will happen if we press it. Similarly we perceive everything through our senses. Our senses have evolved to perceive things in a way that promotes our survival, which is not necessarily the same as perceiving reality with a high degree of accuracy. So take your senses seriously, just don't take them literally.
Donald D. Hoffman's "The Case Against Reality" goes in depth on this.
I can also cite David Deutsch's book "The Fabric of Reality" where he notes "..we never experience reality directly. All reasoning, all thinking, all external experiences are forms of virtual reality. This rendering of our environment is how we survive."
:-)
https://thomasfdavis.substack.com/p/keep-it-real-man