Kairos, Chronos and Theodicy – Bill Dembski on Premier Radio

_{Andrew Sibley

January 11, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I want to kick-off a discussion here following Bill’s very interesting interview on Premier Radio.

I’ll add my first thoughts below.

Comments

Rude writes (53 and 54):
I don’t even accept that there is such a thing as “the scientific method.”
You're in good company with some very credible philosophers of science. There are always cases on the edge where the demarcation problem lurks. It is also the case that, sometimes, scientists don't follow the method chronologically. That being said, in the vast majority of cases you can see from the peer-reviewed literature that the standard observe-hypothesize-predict-test-repeat cycle is followed. That process is self-correcting.
Now, before I search my soul for why I find the notion of time dilation less than beautiful, might I ask you how you define “ugly” and “beautiful”?
Hey, you used the word first! I find scientific theories and mathematical formulas elegant (I hope that's close enough to "beautiful" to be answering your question) when they are concise yet expressive, when they suggests avenues of research or learning that I hadn't considered before, when they explain disparate observations and provide new links between previously disjoint sets. The equations of special relativity are certainly elegant, by my standards,and they have been supported by direct observations. I'm still curious to know why you find the underlying concept ugly.Pan Narrans_{January 25, 2010
January
01
Jan
25
25
2010
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Prof. Pan, You express faith that “the scientific method is self-correcting.” Well let me hereby declare myself the skeptic—I don’t even accept that there is such a thing as “the scientific method.” All we have are observation, reason, and authority—the same in physics as in linguistics, checkers, golf, paleontology and farming—and none of it works without curiousity and honesty. As for Einsteinism—my sense is that what we have here now is a kind of religion where few are curious enough to seek out the devil’s advocates. It’s like Darwinism but less dangerous. Sure, Einstein just like Darwin may someday fall into disrepute—but this will be more a Kuhnian development than the believers would like to believe. The only way you personally can know whether “Beckmann’s theory provides greater explanatory and predictive power than special relativity” is to study it. If you wait till it is no longer ignored by those lacking the courage to question the consensus you may die never knowing. Now, before I search my soul for why I find the notion of time dilation less than beautiful, might I ask you how you define “ugly” and “beautiful”?Rude_{January 25, 2010
January
01
Jan
25
25
2010
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Pan Narrans, You express faith that “the scientific method is self-correcting”—well here I am the skeptic—I don’t even accept that there is such a thing as “the scientific method.” All we have are observation, reason, and authority—the same in physics as in linguistics, checkers, golf, paleontology and farming—and none of it works without honesty. As for Einsteinism—my sense is that what we have here now is a kind of religion where few are curious enough to seek out the devil’s advocates. It’s like Darwinism but less dangerous. Sure, Einstein just like Darwin may someday fall into disrepute---but this will be more a Kuhnian development than the believers would like to believe. Now, before I explore my soul for why I find the notion of time dilation less than beautiful, might I ask you how you define “beautiful” and “ugly”?Rude_{January 25, 2010
January
01
Jan
25
25
2010
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Rude writes (51):
“If Bethell has a theory that explains these observations and makes better predictions, the physics community will be very interested.” What a complacent and dangerous view—that somehow scientists are immune from human nature—or that “the scientific method” or “the system” makes science different than, say, religion.
Oh, I'm by no means complacent about it. Scientists are no less human than anyone else and that, unfortunately, sometimes impacts their work. However, unlike religion and most other human endeavors, the scientific method is self-correcting. Sometimes it takes more time than it should and sometimes the practitioners are less committed to that self-correction than they should be, but ultimately data trumps orthodoxy. A good example of this is Lynn Margulis and endosymbiotic theory. Dr. Margulis struggled for acceptance of her theory for decades, and finally was successful because she focused on research, finding new data, publishing in the peer reviewed literature, and honing her theory to have more explanatory and predictive power. That is exactly how the scientific method is supposed to work. If Beckmann's theory provides greater explanatory and predictive power than special relativity, it will not be ignored by physicists looking to make their mark. I'm still a bit curious though, if you don't mind. What do you find "ugly" about time dilation?Pan Narrans_{January 15, 2010
January
01
Jan
15
15
2010
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

“If Bethell has a theory that explains these observations and makes better predictions, the physics community will be very interested.” What a complacent and dangerous view—that somehow scientists are immune from human nature—or that “the scientific method” or “the system” makes science different than, say, religion. Technology is self corrective—but not government supported “science”. My years in academia taught me that academics are no less territorial, vindictive, pecuniary and uninterested in truth than Joe Six-Pac—in fact I’d say on average they are less so because they tend to be so utterly ignorant of their own human nature. It’s the same as in government. W. F. Buckley, Jr., was right when he said he’d rather be governed by the first five hundred names in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard.” But I’m an optimist—I believe in progress—but I also know that it doesn’t come without kicking you know what. Tom Bethell, by the way, is a science writer—the theory is Petr Beckmann’s.Rude_{January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Rude writes (48):
Some folks take a liking to the notion of time dilation, a few others like me find it ugly
That's interesting. I find the math of special relativity quite aesthetically pleasing, but that's not why I accept the theory as the current best explanation. What do you find "ugly" about it?
so apart from such subjective responses
We have to be careful to distinguish between the scientific theory of special relativity and the actual objective observations that support it. Take the muon flux experiment, for example. The objective observation is that muons, traveling at 0.98c, experience time dilation. If Bethell has a theory that explains these observations and makes better predictions, the physics community will be very interested. That doesn't change the observed evidence, though. Time dilation is a real phenomena.Pan Narrans_{January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

The assumption seems to be that Tom Bethell is some kind of crank. Well, I’m anxious to hear from some physicist or knowledgeable dilettante who has actually read Bethell and is willing to take up his challenge. Evidently Einstein’s theory does not so easily predict the outcome of these time dilation experiments—at least not without “epicycle” like complications—whereas Ockham’s razor rests with Petr Beckmann. So unless you’ve read Bethell (or Beckmann before he went out of print), what more can we say? Some folks take a liking to the notion of time dilation, a few others like me find it ugly, so apart from such subjective responses, is a “scientific consensus” the answer? Of course not! What we need is a vigorous debate out there and not an elitist put down. Darwinian dogma, remember, was uncontroversial until ID could no longer be ignored.Rude_{January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

that's "note" not "not"Collin_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Relativity has been confirmed multiple times, but it does fall apart as an explanation for subatomic particles. Also not one aberration: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.htmlCollin_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

@Rude @Pam Narrans You're both right. Rude - Scientific consensus has always been a racket. There are reasons for this. AGW science notwithstanding :), the most notable relevant example is Maxwell's Equations, which were forcefully co-opted into invariance partly as a result of the well-conceived but poorly-conducted Michelson-Morely experiment. This resulted in Einstein's imperfect, yet transitionally functional special relativity. Historically, man has only been allowed to advance in baby steps. Pam Narrans - Special relativity, with time dilation, as classically defined, has been repeatedly confirmed experimentally. It explains a lot, and allows us to calibrate GPS signals with reasonable accuracy, among other things. Still no cure for cancer. Dembski's book may give some a lot to talk about for decades as vjtorley points out. Kairos-Chronos time has been a subject of interest to scientists and for a couple centuries. I submit, and pardon my vulgarization, that, absent the theory, people have been engineering it for ages.toscents_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

@Rude @Pam Narrans You're both right. Rude - Scientific consensus has always been a racket. There are reasons for this. AGW science notwithstanding :), the most notable relevant example is Maxwell's Equations, which were forcefully co-opted into invariance partly as a result of the well-conceived but poorly-conducted Michelson-Morely experiment. This resulted in Einstein's imperfect, yet transitionally functional special relativity. Historically, man has only been allowed to advance in baby steps. Pam Narrans - Special relativity, with time dilation, as classically defined, has been repeatedly confirmed experimentally. It explains a lot, and allows us to calibrate GPS signals with reasonable accuracy, among other things. Still, no cure for cancer. Dembski's book may give some a lot to talk about for decades as vjtorley points out. Kairos-Chronos time has been a subject of interest to scientists and for a couple centuries. I submit, and pardon my vulgarization, that, absent the theory, people have been engineering it for ages.toscents_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

I wonder---are you a physicist? or just impressed with scientific consensus and uninterested in what the "cranks" say? Anyway it’s not the math but imaging the theory—I’ve never met a physicist who says he can understand it or visualize curved space and space-time. My own gut feeling is that quantum theory perplexes the materialists because of their insistence that mind is nothing but mechanism, but if it turns out that some kind of telekinesis obtains on the quantum level—well maybe that could not only destroy materialism and ultimately integrate all the sciences—it would be intuitively beautiful to the unindoctrinated layman.Rude_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Rude writes (41):
OK, that’s fair—you’re more interested in me than in this.
Well, more interested in your thought process. I don't know you well enough to be interested in you personally. ;-)
The whole thing is suspicious—it’s admitted that no one can understand it (though we must accept it) and it’s generally touted as evidence against any kind of naïve realism.
I think you may be talking about quantum mechanics rather than special relativity. Special relativity is actually rather easy to understand, even if it lies outside our normal experience. The mathematics isn't particularly difficult (by physics standards) and the amount of evidence is pretty overwhelming. It would be impossible for physicists to interpret the data they get from particle accelerators without using special relativity, for example. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Apparently your pseudonym is meant to be ironic.Pan Narrans_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

OK, that's fair---you're more interested in me than in this. The whole thing is suspicious---it's admitted that no one can understand it (though we must accept it) and it's generally touted as evidence against any kind of naïve realism. I find it ugly and distrust anything that I'm told we cannot understand but must accept. I'm highly suspicious of what I'm assured is the scientific consensus---just as this from Michael Crichton:
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Also I find Tom Bethell's book well written and rather convincing. But I'm not a physicist---just distrusting---and unlike those wedded to the "scientific consensus" I've got nothing to lose.Rude_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Several commenters upthread are asking questions about astrophysics in a blog that does not appear to have many resident experts. Why not ask an astrophysicist?Zach Bailey_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Rude writes (39):
But if time dilation is one of those things, like Darwinism, that you must believe to be considered educated, then peer review and consensus may be as worthless as with Darwinism.
Do you have references to any articles detailing results that contradict the predictions of special relativity but that were rejected by the peer reviewed journals? Actually, I'm more interested in why you reject Einstein's theory than in discussing special relativity itself. If you'd rather not answer, just tell me to sod off -- I won't take umbrage. If you have the inclination, though, given the significant number of observations that support special relativity, why do you prefer the claims of someone who could most charitably be described as on the fringe of the scientific community? Is there something particularly compelling in his presentation or something particularly off-putting in the mainstream literature? Thanks, and I'm quite sincere about being willing to sod off.Pan Narrans_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

But if time dilation is one of those things, like Darwinism, that you must believe to be considered educated, then peer review and consensus may be as worthless as with Darwinism. Tom Bethell covers all the supposed evidence to the contrary and comes down on the side of Beckman. If one is a skeptic of scientific elitism, and interested in this issue, then I should think he would read Tom Bethell, and if he’s a physicist he would read Petr Beckman. But then if he’s worried about his career … maybe not.Rude_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Rude writes (37):
Petr Beckman predicted, not that time dilates but that molecular clocks would slow up when moving through a gravitational field, and assuming the earth’s gravitational field does not move with the daily rotation then a clock in a satellite moving east should slow up by whatever millionth of a second but not so when moving west. According to Einstein’s theory it is relative velocity and not direction that affects time. Thus Hafele & Keating confirm Beckman—not Einstein.
I'm afraid that's simply not correct. The results of Hafele and Keating's experiment are readily available on the web, as are the results of Vessot's more precise measurements. All confirm special relativity. These experiments are just a tiny fraction of those with results supporting special relativity. Do you have any peer reviewed articles describing experiments with results that contradict Einstein's theory? Questioning dominant theories is certainly important to the progress of science, but those questions should have some basis in the empirical evidence.Pan Narrans_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Here, I don’t have time to read these now, but when I Google up comes chapter 6 of something called Relativity Revolution and chapter 4 from a book called The Restoration of Space and Time, both of which mention Petr Beckman. Petr Beckman predicted, not that time dilates but that molecular clocks would slow up when moving through a gravitational field, and assuming the earth’s gravitational field does not move with the daily rotation then a clock in a satellite moving east should slow up by whatever millionth of a second but not so when moving west. According to Einstein’s theory it is relative velocity and not direction that affects time. Thus Hafele & Keating confirm Beckman---not Einstein.Rude_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Rude writes (33):
Ah, just Google Beckman Hafele Keating and lots of stuff comes up. Check it out and see what you think.
My Google-Fu is not strong today. I found some references to Piotr Beckman, but nothing that claims to refute special relativity. I guess my question boils down to, given that time dilation has been observed, both in the case of atomic clocks on jets and in particle accelerators, why would you doubt it?
Pan Narrans—is that Baltic?
It's Pratchett!Pan Narrans_{January 13, 2010
January
01
Jan
13
13
2010
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

In the Orthodox Christian Church, the first service of the day is called the Kairon. Before the Liturgy, the Deacon says to the Priest "It is time for the Lord to act." He is referring to Kairos time. Most of the parishioners will have removed their watches. The service will last 2 hours or more, and though thier feet may hurt, and they'll likely be hungrier, they will have experienced Heaven on Earth. This is the closest one can get (in this world) to experience time as Adam and Eve did. William Kingdon Clifford and Sir William Rowan Hamilton attempted to calculate the incalculable in the 19th century. Roberto Casati and Achille C. Varzi try to turn the map into the territory today. Bill Dembski, using the tools of a metaphysician, tells us that ultimately "God [is] omnipotent and omniscient, transcends the physical world". He is right. Kairos and Chronos correspond to a core concept in Orthodox Christianity, the concept of polarity without duality. The Energy and Essence of God correspond directly with Chronos and Kairos respectively. Chronos, being more easily apprehended, is part of God's created aspect, his Energy. It is knowable and immanent. Closer than our own heartbeat. Kairos, corresponds to God's uncreated Essence. It is completely unknowable and transcendent. Eternally 'other'. Where these two poles meet is Christ. When the Other became Man, through Him we may attain to a better understanding of the Other, and be admitted back to Eden.toscents_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

Dembski attempts, and accomplishes with yeoman duty articulating his main point. That is, that time seems to have two paradoxically opposite characteristics, yet the two may be compatible. Theologically, his theodicy is complementary to the teachings of Orthodox Christianity. This simultaneously addresses any exegetical issues, as Orthodox Christianity has a unique way of explicating Scripture. I won't go into that here. Dembski uses metaphysical spectacles to resolve a problem that is simultaneously theological, cosmogonical, anthropological, and biological. These spectacles are the wrong instrument. He might do better to don the spectacles of a topologist. Chronos, with it's analogue in Dembski's causal-temporal logic, is home in Minkowski, or pseudo-Euclidian space. It is vector space with vector time. Relativity fits and functions here. Lorentz transformations function here too, as Galilean Transformations function in Newtonian physics. Kairos is time in Dembski's intentional-semantic logic. This should be referred to as scalar time. It is simply values or fields, and is not changed by Euclidian, Lorentz, or space-time translations. While chronos can wake us up on time, or even get us to the Moon, it has serious problems. As a vector, it's origin is unknown, and its values do not readily commute with other vectors. This is true, especially with Minkowski's Proper Time, even though relativity clumsily calculates spacetime intervals. Then there is the problem of squaring coordinate and Proper Time with sidereal time. Not so bad when one uses just the Earth, but the rest of the universe keeps changing. Kairos is much harder to wrap the fallen human head around. I would say impossible. It is infinitely recursive; it just sits there, unpackable. When a scalar is added to a vector, the sum is a quaternion, which then requires a fourth dimension of Euclidian space. Dembski's theodicy therefore may not only allow a multiverse, it may require it.toscents_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

Ah, just Google Beckman Hafele Keating and lots of stuff comes up. Check it out and see what you think. Pan Narrans---is that Baltic?Rude_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Wait a minute! I remember now---Einstein never predicted a difference in time dilation dependent on direction---it was Petr Beckman who predicted that.Rude_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Rude writes (30):
I don’t know—I’m not a physicist. Have you read Tom Bethell and Petr Beckman on it?
No, but I'd be happy to if you have a link to a summary of their positions rather than another book for my evergrowing Amazon wish list. In the meantime, though, the Hafele and Keating experiment pretty clearly demonstrates time dilation occurring. Within the limits of experimental error, the amount of dilation measured is what is predicted by relativity. Given that, why do you deny time dilation?Pan Narrans_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Pan Narrans (29), I don't know---I'm not a physicist. Have you read Tom Bethell and Petr Beckman on it?Rude_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Rude writes (27)
I remain, yours truly, a time dilation denier.
What are your thoughts on the Hafele and Keating Experiment that demonstrated time dilation in accordance with Einstein's theory?Pan Narrans_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

VJTorley in 24, thanks much and good points on this Big Bang business. But remember, if David Berlinski is correct then the BB really has little going for it except,
Like Darwin’s theory of evolution, Big Bang cosmology has undergone that curious social process in which a scientific theory is promoted to a secular myth. The two theories serve as points of certainty in an intellectual culture that is otherwise disposed to give the benefit of the doubt to doubt itself. It is within the mirror of these myths that we have come to see ourselves. But if the promotion of theory into myth satisfies one human agenda, it violates another. Myths are quite typically false, and science is concerned with truth. Human beings, it would seem, may make scientific theories or they may make myths, but with respect to the same aspects of experience, they cannot quite do both.
Also according to Tom Bethell—an ID supporter—Einsteinian time dilation is another secular myth. Paul Johnson, who didn’t doubt Einstein, began his Modern Times in 1905 because—conceding that Einstein never meant his theory to be taken this way—it was indeed taken to validate a new moral relativism—all is relative—hooray! So I’m not really interested in more articles championing Einstein’s theory—I want to see Petr Beckman’s objections addressed. Until then I remain, yours truly, a time dilation denier.Rude_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

vjtorley said: "The problem is that given enough time, even astronomically improbable events can happen." Is this an expression of faith? "Third, I’d attempt to develop a grand theory which made all of these problems disappear in an elegant fashion, and which either posited or entailed that the universe must be very young." This is hard to do when the theorist wants to argue that the universe was an act of special creation. This is the main difficulty for creationism and maybe for intelligent design too (although not fatal, it's a psychological stumbling block for many).Collin_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

As we stand on the authority of God’s Word, we will always find sooner or later that true scientific knowledge confirms His Word. ~ Terry Mortenson vjtorley @ 16 Dembski’s thoughtful attempt to reconcile Scripture, science and the reality of suffering has resulted in an extraordinarily fruitful theodicy which should provoke discussion for decades to come. bevets @ 21 You said “science“, but I think you were referring to contemporary sceintific consensus regarding radiometric dating methods. vjtorley @ 24 Let me begin by saying that I’m not a scientist. However, my impression as a layperson is that the experimental evidence cited by young-earth creationists to date is nowhere near strong enough to persuade me that the Earth is young. For those who are curious, here are some links: Do you also consider the ASA's position to be the final authority on Intelligent Design?bevets_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply