Thursday, July 14, 2022

The Dimensions of Time and the Limits of Stupid

Well, the new book on emergence turned out to be a bust, so we'll have to turn the page to a new subject. I have two possibilities in mind, but let's go with the so-called (by Bob) "temporal hyperdimensionality" of God. 

If I'm not mistaken, there should be significant overlap between this and emergence anyway, since they are so thoroughly entangled that neither can be explained or even mentioned without the other: as the Sphinx might say, emergence can only happen in time, and time is the place where things emerge -- or where creativity, novelty, and upside surprise happen.

Boo!  

In sneaking up on a subject such as this, we are always guided by the dictum that

The doctrines that explain the higher by means of the lower are appendices of a magician’s rule book.

A scientistic magician, to be exact. For this is one of the
Four or five invulnerable philosophical propositions [which] allow us to make fun of the rest.

The other ones being little things such as the principle of non-contradiction, the trans-existence of the Absolute (and all this implies), and the intelligibility of the cosmos to man's intelligence (and thus the reality of the world, at least as far as it goes). 

Some things are so truly stupid that only the tenured could believe them. Which reminds me of the other subject I wanted to discuss, the limitations of the human intellect -- not the limitations per se, but the manner in which we are able to intuit the limitations of the other guy's intellect.

I was trying to explain this mysterious ability to my son just yesterday. I never consciously thought about it until stumbling upon the following aphorism:

Of someone else's intelligence we soon sense only the limits.

Or, conversely, the limitlessness. Only when the latter is present can the Raccoon be sure he is in the presence of his own kind, and is speaking ʘto ʘ.

I don't know about you, but I am almost always able to immediately sense the limits of the intelligence in question. Once I do, then there's little point in further discussion, or at least serious discussion, for it is very much analogous to a sphere discussing the nature of geometry with a circle. True, we can agree on some little things, but the circle is going to be limited by what amounts to a dimensional Dunning-Kruger.

Which, now that I think about it, could be the subject of a whole post. I will resist the temptation, but let me illustrate with a concrete example from just yesterday, the disappointing book on emergence by a tenured mediocrity named Vincent Vesterby. 

When I opened it and began reading, I knew from the first paragraph that this was not Raccoon material -- neither the book nor the man -- and the suspicion was only confirmed the more I read. The following will suffice: "The brain, with its associated mind, is a biologically evolved entity," and "Truth is a product of the evolutionary process." 

In other words, I think we're done here. But since our subject is going to be the nature of time, I'll cite one more passage: time

occurs as continuous, uniform, unidirectional, sequential change, which cannot-not occur, and was thus without beginning and will never end. There has occurred an unlimited quantity, an eternity, of time.

Excuse me? The only time science knows of is the time that began with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. We can speculate as to what was "before" and what might be "after," but it is not anything like our experience of time. To the extent that it is temporal at all, it must be a hyperdimensional time. 

A reminder that

Those who reject all metaphysics secretly harbor the coarsest.

Here are a few more relevant aphorisms on the subject of intellectual limits:

The great intelligence is not an intelligence greater than the ordinary, but an intelligence of another nature.

More dimensions, you might say. Or at least some additional height and depth. Of which there are counterfeit versions, which is why

Confused ideas and murky ponds seem deep.

Which goes to why leftists are taken in by so much absurd nonsense, because it essentially functions as a substitute for religious depth -- or for the depth dimension disclosed by religion. For on the one hand,

To think like our contemporaries is the recipe for prosperity and stupidity.

But ultimately, 

Thought can avoid the idea of God as long as it limits itself to meditating on minor problems.

Now, we've all heard about the "multiverse," which is a theory invented by lower dimensional physicists who don't like the unavoidable theistic implications of the Big Bang. While the theory is possible in the abstract, it is concretely impossible. 

However, there is a kind of real multiverse, which involves the future, in that, out of all the possible universes that potentially exist, only one will undergo the formality of actually existing. In short, it will emerge, but how, and from what?

To be continued, since we got sidetracked with the rant about intellectual limits.

38 comments:

julie said...

I don't know about you, but I am almost always able to immediately sense the limits of the intelligence in question.

Cooncur. Interestingly, some of the most intelligent people I know don't really consider themselves particularly intelligent in the way most other people mean.

Once I do, then there's little point in further discussion, or at least serious discussion, for it is very much analogous to a sphere discussing the nature of geometry with a circle.

Oh, yep. That's why most conversations I have with most people consist of me smiling, nodding, or making sympathetic expressions, unless I have something particular to contribute that could possibly be heard. For instance, new acquaintance begins talking very seriously and without context about how climate change is affecting the weather this year. I don't have to say a word after that, what would be the point?

Gagdad Bob said...

Only once you've exited the Matrix can you see it, but there is a kind of constant drumbeat of propaganda to drive you back in. Which is another reason why a religious practice is so important, since it functions as a counter-world to their unreal world.

julie said...

Ironically, some of the most deeply-invested Matrix dwellers I've met have been in church. Considering Pope Francis has been beating the climate change drum, I guess it isn't all that surprising, though.

Gagdad Bob said...

The subject came up with my son, because every day he facetimes his Florida-by-way-of-New York / secular Jewish / Democrat grandmother, and notices the phenomenon -- for example, how she is all-in with the J6 hearings, with no awareness whatsoever that opinions differ, to put it mildly. She also thinks her governor is an anti-Semitic homophobe for Reasons.

julie said...

I feel for him. Last year I stopped doing my Zoom Bible study with the old group from Florida for much the same reasons. I love everybody in the group, but just couldn't stomach anymore the long, terror-filled conversations about how people who aren't vaccinated shouldn't be allowed to go to Mass, and they were essentially cutting off family members (usually their grown children) who disagreed. Had any of them been family, I would have stuck it out; now i just pray for them instead.

How they could start the meeting with those conversations, then go on to a Bible reading that directly contradicted everything they had just argued without even the slightest twinge of conscience I will never really understand. Being a Matrix dweller must literally be a type of brain damage.

Gagdad Bob said...

It is disconcerting to encounter the phenomenon in religious people, but it partly goes back to what Schuon says about pneumatics, who simply live in a larger cosmos with a bigger God, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

At a July 4th party I was talking to a very nice person who is happily hemmed in by Biblical literalism. I was about to talk about how Catholics have always believed in different senses of scripture, but then said nah to myself. If she needs to know, she'll find out.

Gagdad Bob said...

As I've said before, belief in a literal six day creation is infinitely closer to the metaphysical truth than the atheistic alternatives.

julie said...

I've done the same. We had a friend in FL who was an honest-to-goodness flat earther. It wasn't worth debating with the guy, and anyway it was clear that God was at work in his life. Like you said, if he really needs to know the world isn't flat, he'll find out. Nothing I can say will change his mind.

Gagdad Bob said...

I should have so much faith.

John Venlet said...

However, there is a kind of real multiverse,...

Indeed there is, and it is not simply "kind of real", unless one considers The Messiah's words in John 14:2 as simply storytelling.

In regards to sensing and having to interact with individuals whose intelligence is limited, especially the highest educated, my wife runs interference for these types if they are around me, and if she did not, well, things sometimes get interesting.

Anonymous said...

My views on climate change denial are better than your views on climate change happening because I’m religious and scientists are not.

Think it’ll sell? I’d say the anti-scientism argument is a lot more compelling.

We’ll stay on our side of the spiritual fence if you’ll stay on your side with the material stuff. Our scientism argument tends to fall flat when we don’t. When we proclaim total knowledge of things we don’t know anything about, either scientist or spiritual laymen, we tend to make fools out of ourselves. Not that we’re capable of being aware of it of course.

Nicolás said...

One of the worst intellectual disasters is in the appropriation by mediocre intelligences of the concepts and vocabulary of a science.

Anonymous said...

Trying to convince a flat-earther that they won't fall off the edge of the world is kind of like trying to convince someone who thinks that the last election was fraudulent and Trump really won, that this isn't the case. All that each need to do is think rationally.

julie said...

That is a hard limit right there. Yikes.

Cousin Dupree said...

Trying to convince a Biden supporter the last election was rigged is like trying to convince a Biden supporter the Steele Dossier wasn't real and Hunter's laptop isn't Russian disinfo.

Anonymous said...

It isn't just Biden supporters (of which I am not) that understand the reality of the last election. It is a matter of evidence and reality. I.e. this study by Republican lawyers and judges that claims a stolen election: https://www.newsweek.com/republican-judges-lawyers-conclude-2020-election-was-lost-not-stolen-1724826

Instead of the whataboutism and a fear of addressing the claims of a stolen election claims head on, how about defending your position with evidence. You can't because there isn't any. Hard to figure out... Do you just think that the laws and evidence don't matter and the end of democracy is better than dealing with the loss or are you just fooling yourselves.

Think of the world you are setting up for your children where America is no longer a democracy. It can happen.

Daisy said...

Akshully, America was never a democracy, it was a representative republic. But it isn't that anymore, and hasn't been for longer than most people realize. Nor is it a democracy now. Just a kleptocracy run by idiots, lunatics and psychopaths.

I'm sure that can all change if you just vote a little harder next time, though.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Daisy, I do agree to a fair degree about the country being a kleptocracy run by idiots and sociopaths with a smattering of psychopaths. For the most part, congressional and senate members have legalized bribery and sell their votes to the highest special interest bidders. Then there is the revolving door of getting jobs to the industries that they sold their votes to as lobbyists. It is quite sad.

Anonymous said...

...the kind of personality who is likely to want to get into politics is likely to be driven by self interests vs. doing good (although I guess at some level this is human nature). It does seem to attract the worst type of people though

Anonymous said...

"The Democrat position (no joke) is that our election systems are dangerously vulnerable to hacks that cannot be detected.

"Also, no hacks were detected in the 2020 election, therefore none happened.

"And they sold that to their base with no pushback."

Anonymous said...

They're doing their best to rig the 2024 election too. I mean MAKE IT THE MOST UNCORRUPT ELECTION SINCE 2020!

Cousin Dupree said...

Look, if Biden's historic unpopularity puts the election outside the margin of cheating, then Dems will just have to cheat harder.

Nicolás said...

The left does not always assassinate, but always lies.

John said...

Not so sure about that. IMHO he was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

Nicolás said...

Touché. The political platforms of the left are gradually transformed into scaffolds.

Anonymous said...

There is a difference in between stating that that millions voted illeg­ally in the 2016 elec­tion (as Trump maintains) there was fraud in the voting process and that people's votes should be rejected and assigned to another candidates vs. identifying things like Zuckerbucks which have the appearance of impropriety and which may favor one party over the other (although the highly conservative National Review doesn't agree: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-are-zuckerbucks-and-why-are-they-controversial/). The facts which are supported by many recounts, investigations, lawsuits, and testimony by Republican is that there was not fraud in the counting of votes as Trump asserts and no illegal voting of significance. There has not been one iota of evidence to the contrary.

Re rigging like the Zuckerbucks as noted, it does have the appearance of impropriety and could lead to impropriety, although there doesn't appear to be evidence of this. I think laws preventing such private contributions should be eliminated. The article about Biden having a plan to rig the 2024 election is high on speculation and low on facts.

Think about it... If there really was something illegal and significantly improper, why is it that even the kooks like Sidney Powell and Rudy or any other Republicans can't name anything specific and get an investigation going? It defies logic. Anything that was widespread or enough to impact an election would have come out and there would be proof of it. We are a country of laws. When laws are broken there should be prosecution. Trump will do anything to win. Why can't he come up with any proof of anything???

Nicolás said...

The leftist does not have opinions, only dogmas.

Nicolás said...

Liberals describe a past that never existed and predict a future that is never realized.

Anonymous said...

Don't believe your lying eyes: crime, inflation, and illegal immigration are all down under Biden.

Anonymous said...

If Biden really cared about fair elections he'd get to the bottom of how the Russians hacked 2016.

Anonymous said...

"The leftist does not have opinions, only dogmas."
He who believes in falsehoods which are not provable only has deflection and cannot directly defend his positions which are without defense

Anonymous said...

Biden sucks and is a terrible bumbling president. What one thinks about Biden however has nothing to do with not buying into the falsehood that millions voted illegally and the vote counting was fraudulent and that Trump really won. And to equate that with "leftism" really is beneath anyone here.

And to buy into the above falsehood without being able to provide an iota of evidence and always responding to the rejection of this with name calling, whataboutism, and deflection of unrelated issues really is also beneath the level of intellect that goes into the author's posts and many of the well thought out responses. The author write post after post many of which tie together his extreme level of [synonym for being well-read that I couldn't find] and makes well thought out arguments. Not sure why this issue doesn't receive the same level of intellectual examination.

Anonymous said...

Agreed: if the gaslight media had informed the public of Brandon's bumbling senility, he wouldn't be president.

julie said...

In other stupid outer limits, Rolling Stone discovers a penumbra of Christianity that literally nobody ever heard of before

"Prayer is a powerful communication tool in the evangelical tradition: The speaker assumes the mantle of the divine, and to disagree with an offered prayer is akin to sin."

Is that kind of like papal infallibility, but for laypeople?

Nicolás said...

Militant irreligion gradually transforms the one possessed into a simple imbecile convulsed by hatred.

Anonymous said...

I dunno about all this discussion between the religiously superpowered and the rationally empowered.

One is good at praying and braying, the other at proclaiming metaphysical impossibilities. (Not that there's anything wrong with projecting)

Me, I worry that atheist China will get all the converts while the USA devolves into something between Francoist Spain and Mullah Iran, national conditions which hardly anybody outside takes seriously.

Nicolás said...

Of someone else's intelligence we soon sense only the limits.

Van Harvey said...

"I was trying to explain this mysterious ability to my son just yesterday. I never consciously thought about it until stumbling upon the following aphorism:

Of someone else's intelligence we soon sense only the limits."

If anyone has difficulty grasping that, they need only read, skim, the comments above. Cooncidentally, it simultaneously demonstrates and sorts.

Theme Song

Theme Song