Now watch as I stumble blindly through unfamiliar territory:

You said:

"The moment that a timeless entity 'felt' something they would be 'in time' and this would make this sentient being a creature of the universe instead of the other way around."

Then you said:

"I advocate an aware God (or an aware divine order). That is, whatever actions that divine order does would have to consider actions that it has taken or will take at a minor or higher level."

How do you hold both opinions? A causal process does not indicate decision making.

"My understanding is the presentism has problems. For example, what actually exists is only the present, but SR casts serious doubts on the concept of an objective and universal 'now'.

True, at least from a theoretical position. I find time nearly impossible to understand, personally. If the past and future have real identities, where are they? (Bad question, I know.) Also, would this suggest an infinite amount of energy in the..... ummm..... multiverse, since there is an infinite amount of points on a timeline?

"The point behind my suggestion of a divine order is that this if-thenism is deciding upon conscious and intelligent level constructs. This requires an if-then structure which is able to understand thoughts, intents, etc."

Why must understanding be an issue? A computer program, for instance, "directs" the flow of information through its hardware, but there is no consciousness involved. It is all self-sustaining. I don't understand how you advocate infinite mathematical order, but with the stipulation that it be self-aware.

"Why put an unnatural stop where it does not belong? Again, in my view either the universe is mathematical from the basic points of existence to the very highest levels of spacetime organization, or it is not mathematical at all."

Damn straight. That's what I've been saying.

• relations - harvey1 - September 29, 2001 - 00:34 UTC