Interview with Steve Schramm, the Winsome Creationist

I recentlty appeared on Steve Schramm's creationist podcast explaining the flaws in Lisle's Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC). The model is an attempt to explain how light from distant objects can reach the earth "instantaneously". Many lay creationists rightly view it with suspicion and I have cririqued it herein at these essays.
The myth of spacetime, More on Eternalism, Time in Christian Perspective, and Eternalism Visualized.
You can view the interview on you Tube. And if you like it, please give it a thumbs up!

Gordon H. Clark's artificial epistemology

This entry (which has been sitting in my "incomplete files" since 2022) is more philosophy of science than science itself. It may have been better posted on my companion site. Nonetheless, here it is.

Gordon H. Clark is a Christian apologist who is also identified as a presuppositionalist. Yet Clark was no presuppositionalist in the way that Van Til was. That they both have the same "label" leads to the mistaken notion that they are the same. But there is a wide divide when the foundational presuppositions are considered. While there are good elements in Clark's philosophy it is my assessment that there are far too many bad elements too.

For instance, when it came to science, Clark,adopted an anti-empirical stance. It seems to me that Clark was a victim of the "scientific" zeitgeist of the 20th century. Many of the things he says about the philosophies of atheist scientist we can agree with. But Clark, rather than reconstructing a Christian philosophy of science, tosses the baby out with the bath water. He dismisses science as noncognitive, succumbs to and agrees with the merely operational view of science embraced by Dewey and others. This surrender is truly disappointing. His argument against atheist philosophy of science is to dismiss all of science. Clark in the final analysis was an Idealist and a Rationalist. He was also a Dogmatic Christian and believed only the Bible (held as the axioms) provided truth either directly or by way of formal deduction therefrom. Hoover has provided a critique of Clark here with which I agree.

Clark loves to wax eloquent on the fallacy of induction, Quotes from the Trinity Foundation provide examples of Clark's thought (Trinity Foundation link)

"The problem is simply this: Induction, arguing from the particular to the general, is always a fallacy." Gordon H. Clark

"Science is always false" Gordon H. Clark

This being a universal statement generalized from the particulars that G.H. Clark produces, is an inductive argument by G.H.Clark. But Clark declares this is a fallacy. So Clark declares himself to be false.

Clark has involved himself in a self-contradiction. Of the same sort as the "brilliant" logical positivists. But this type of self-contradiction is the hallmark of man made systems.

Logical Positivism - which scoffed at "metaphysical" inquiry (one should raise an eyebrow immediately) - tried to base its epistemology (without metaphysics!) on the premise that all truth is either empirical or logically derived (i.e., tautology). All else was metaphysical nonsense. The problem, of course, is that the foundational premise of Logical Positivism is neither a tautology nor an empirical truth. Thus, Logical Positivism is metaphysical nonsense -- self contradictory. It is metaphysical nonsense of the very sort they decried.

Clark agrees with this assessment, in his essay of Atheism he says:

"Every system of theology or philosophy must have a starting point. Logical Positivists started with the unproved assumption that a sentence can have no meaning unless it can be tested by sensation. To speak without referring to something that can be touched, seen, smelled, and especially measured, is to speak nonsense. But they never deduce this principle. It is their non-demonstrable axiom. Worse, it is self-contradictory, for it has not been seen, smelled, or measured; therefore it is self-condemned as nonsense."

In another argument against empirical science, Gordon H. Clark adduces a case where observers of an "airplane" at a distance later see it dive and catch a fish. He adduces this to "demonstrate" that people can err and therefore perception is always wrong?? That, in itself, is induction from a singular case to a general law, and thus a fallacy. But more so, the adduced example is not normative of scientific practice. The example is not an observation designed to induce a general law of nature. The scientific method relies strictly on the restriction of repeatable experiments in controlled environments.

But what is damning is that his example commits the fallacy of relevance. A more apt attempt would be a man trying to visually assess the length of stick at a distance. But that too is not relevant to science. From such a singular observation of a particular stick what of science is at risk? The correct method is to measure the stick with an instrument for measuring (such as a ruler).

Here is another example, one which would declare the Bible false for using empirical knowledge. Consider assessing the weight of an object by hand or with a scale. Of course the scale is the more precise instrument than the hand, and we would say the more scientific way; and to this we have (Proverbs 20:10). Clark may argue that no measurement is true, since we cannot know how to measure to infinite precision. But Clark agrees man is finite and such is impossible for man. But approximate measurements are not in the category of false knowledge. Otherwise, Proverbs 20:10 is meaningless. It would be declaring all weights of human construction an abomination.

Not all astrophysicists understand General Relativity

This segment from the Science Channel's "How the Universe Works" reveals that astrophysicists do not tend to have a rigorous education in the mathematics of general relativity. Unfortunately, untrained creationists have an uncritical aceptance of such popular expositions and repeat them in their expositions.

Here is Grant Tremblay commenting on the image of a blackhole. He claims we are looking at an actual discontinuity in the fabric of spacetime!

There is no such thing as spacetime. A belief in spacetime as a real completed object is a belief in eternalism. Belief in spacetime is antitheistic and anti Biblical. Spacetime is an abstract mathematical model of relativistic physics. Spacetime is not a fabric. Also, mathematically egregious is the claim that the event horizon is a discontinuity (in the fabric of spacetime). The event horizon is not a discontinuity.

Creationists need to engage in critical mathematical and theological analysis and abandon such beliefs.

Eternalism Visualized

In order to visualize the ontology of the eternalist I created this perhaps amusing model. In the photo the bamboo skewer is time and the orange paperdolls are someone's existence in the eternalist's block house universe. All of the orange men at different internal temporal "locations" exist "simutaneously" in a timeless universe. One should imagine that there is an infinite number of paperdolls between the ones shown. View it as a continuum of dolls, a solid block comprising a spatial and temporal worm extended etenally in space and "time."

Since the paperdolls are a continuum in spacetime it is not proper to say that there is a spatial size or shape of the paperdolls. The size and shape are just a convention of what one defines as "simultaneous."

This model also illustrates the neccesity of eternalism for time travel. Suppose the photo shows the present in the foreground and the past recedes into the background. The photo shows that your "past" self exists eternally anxiously awaiting to be visited by your "future" self. All you have to do is hop off the skewer by some not yet discovered process and travel back to your "former" self!

My prior posts on eternalism can be found here and here.

Time in Christian Perspective. The past is not a place. You can't get to 'then' from 'now.'

For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein (from The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princeton University Press, 2000). p. 75).

What Einstein was referring to in the quote above, was the impossibility, according to his theory of relativity, of any objective determination of "now," and the lack of a unique objective distinction between past and future for some pairs of events, since these depend on the reference frame. In his words, "The four-dimensional continuum is now no longer resolvable objectively into sections, which contain all simultaneous events; “now” loses for the spatially extended world its objective meaning. It is because of this that space and time must be regarded as a four-dimensional continuum that is objectively unresolvable." -Einstein, Ideas and Opinions. (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954). p. 371.

I came upon this blog site while researching the topics of presentism and eternalism.

Is Time Travel Possible?

My answer is a resounding "No!" One's answer to that question depends from the start on whether one's philosophy of time is eternalism or presentism. What exactly are these philosophies?

Eternalism is the view that the past, present, and future all exist timelessly and eternally. The cosmos is an eternal four dimensional "block house." In philosophpical terms, spacetime is a completed ontological object -- an actual four dimensaional continuum rather than an abstract four dimensional concept. That notion has its roots in mistaken interpretations of Special Relativity, with an artificial construction and a conventionalist definition of “simultaneity.” Hillary Putnam in his essay "Time and Physical Geometry" rehearsed in detail an argument for eternalism that relied on that standard misrepresented implication of Special Relativity. His argument in brief rests upon the fact that the Lorentz transformation of SR does not preserve a "now" between observers in relative motion. If I am at rest then my time (i.e. t = 0) slice of spacetime (the set of all events "simultaneous" with me merely because it is assigned the same t coordinate, and what Putnam calls "me-now") does not correspond to your time' (i.e. t' = 0) slice of spacetime (what Putnam calls "you-now"). Putnam then asserts that if what exists in "my-now" is real; and if you and I are collocated at t = t ' = 0 (as you move past me), then me-now and you-now are simultaneously real. Finally, since this property of being real is transitive, it follows that every thing "simultaneous" with you-now is real and everything "simultaneous" with me-now is real, but you are real to me so all of the things real for you must also be real for me. Since some of the things real for you lie to the future of my-now and some to the past. It follows from this (specious) argument that all past, present and future events must be real. And that is eternalism. The attentive reader no doubt noticed the shifting meaning and properties assigned to Putnam's adopted conventional defintions of "simultaneous" and "real."

Presentism, on the contrary, which is the view that only the present exists, future is not yet, and the past is gone. In other words, the past, present and future do not persist in an unchanging four dimensonal "spacetime." There is just space that persists through time. Yesterday's gone. You can’t get to there from now – the past is not a place.

It was through the illegitmate wedding of space and time into a single entity known as spacetime that is the core presupposition of eternalism. It was this philosophical view that lead Einstein to declare time as an illusion -- and indeed it would be in eternal spacetime. I call this philosophical presupposition the myth of spacetime

Presentism is the Christian view, but I won’t argue from that at the moment.

Rather, I will critique eternalism and the mistaken idea that time travel is possible.

Clearly, on presentism, time travel is not possible. The past is not a place one can visit in a temporal analog of a spatial trip in an automobile. This brings me to the specific blog entry by physicalists arguing time travel is possible. Spatialization of time implies same constraints as a loop of string. A loop of string cannot be a spatial loop and fail to connect to its other end as one traces the loop. The loop is physically constrained to be such. The blog referenced above makes that incisive observation. Physicalists’ glib declaration that one can’t travel into the past and kill ones grandfather because you didn’t is true but that doesn’t explore the reason and the implications. In the same way that the loop is physically constrained, so is the purported time traveler, as he is a physical system and must obey the dictates of a constrained physical solution. The conclusion is clear. There is no human autonomy from physical causation. Physical systems have to act according to the physical laws. Time travel paradoxes only arise because their creators conveniently fail to examine the entire set of implications of their physicalist presuppositions. Specifically, they simultaneously embrace human autonomy and also physical determinism of the unchangning block universe. Those two are contradictory. Hence, no autonomy and no paradox.

Such belief in eternalism and possibility of time travel are rather prevalent among non-Christians. However it may come as a surprise that some Christians have uncritically adopted the eternalist view of Einstein. In particular is Jason Lisle and his ill conceived Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) for accounting for a young earth in an old(?) universe. That Lisle has embraced eternalism is not a mere conjecture since he ascribes to the possibility of time travel as "implied" by Special Relativity (SR). Actually the view of Special Relativity that Lisle holds is more than the mathematical structure of the theory. He has also adopted the assumption of the eternalist. A belief in the myth of spacetime.

That Jason Lisle has succumbed to the eternalist view of special relativity is evident from his book “The Physics of Einstein.” Examples from chapter 10 “How to Build a Time Machine” of that book are:

(1) that he gives lip service to time travel which is impossible in presentism;
(2) his claim that time travel is provable using the Lorentz transformation.

The second claim is a false conclusion that is based on an unstated and uncritically examined presupposition of eternalism – i.e. the presupposition that the past still exists and is a place that can be visited. Rejecting that unproven presupposition and adopting presentism (as Christian theism requires) shows that time travel is not provable from the Lorentz transformation. The mathematics of Special Relativity do not prove the possibility of time travel. The possibility of time travel is based on a commitment to a philosophical presupposition.

Here is an extended quote of Lisle:

“As we saw in the previous chapter the theory of relativity allows for the possibility of traveling backward in time if it is also possible to travel faster than the speed of light. That's the good news. The bad news is that there are some compelling reasons to think that faster than light travel is not possible, at least not for information bearing systems. We have seen hints of that in previous chapters, and we will go into greater depth in later chapters. Nonetheless, hypothetically if faster than light travel were possible, then time travel into the past would also be possible. This is provable from the Lorentz transformation, and gives us a much more profound understanding of the nature of space and time. " (emph. added)

The Lorentz transform alone does not prove time travel. It requires the extra commitment to an eternalist Minkowski spacetime as it requires the past to exist in order to be “revisited.” That is the notion that “time is a place,” which is part-and-parcel of Minkowski’s eternal block universe as espoused by Einstein ("time is an illusion"). Lisle's "profound understanding of the nature of space and time" is infected by eternalism as his inference requires that the past is a place, sitting there waiting to be revisited, if only, we could travel faster than the speed of light. This idea is what has infected and influenced the views of “conventionality” of simultaneity, synchronization and Lisle's “Anisotropic Synchrony Convention” model.

More on Eternalism. The Conventionalism of "Simultaneity." The loss of the "Present." The Banishment of Spatial shapes.

In the prior post (link), I touched briefly on the implications of eternalism and how it is an antiChristian philosophy. 

In this post I discuss how eternalism is the basis of the convetionality thesis of Jason Lisle. 

All of the traits listed in the title are consequences of the eternalist philosophy. Before outlining the proof of those last two, I'll give another description of the two philosophic positions on time: eternalism and presentism.  Here follows two brief descriptions of how each philosophy views the properties of existing objects.

Presentism

In presentism what exists are objects with extensions in the 3 spatial dimensions that persist through time.   This view is perfectly compatible with relativistic physics.  In scientific parlance it is called the 3+1 formulation of relativistic physics.  The "3+1" formulation is the one used everyday in numerical relativity calculations, such as computing the time evolution of orbiting black holes and gravitational waves.  It is referred to as the ADM formalism (follow this link for more details).  Opposed to presentism is the philosophy called...

Eternalism

“Gentlemen! The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you … They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” Herman Minkowski (1908)

As described before, eternalism espouses an eternal blockhouse spacetime, in which past, present and future events exist eternally in a timeless spacetime.Minkowski was the father of eternalism,as the quote above reveals.

The Difference in a "nutshell"

To summarize the difference of the two philosophies:

In Eternalism there is no "now." There is no "present" moment. There is just an eternal set of "events." For some pairs of events there is no absolute "simultaneity" so there is no "simultaneity" except by convention and hence there is no "now." The past, present and future all coexist eternally. The past is "still there"; the future is "already there"; and the present is just a "subjective illusion."

In Presentism there is a passing moment, called the present. throughout the universe, though we cannot determine it or experimentally detect it.

  

An Eternalist Universe versus the Eternal God. The myth of spacetime

In Christian theology we point out that questions like: "Where is God?" as if He is located in some "(super)space" and "When is God?" (as if He is contained within time) are meaningless. This is summarized in the "Aseity of God." The "aseity" (meaning "from himself" or "self-existent") of God is shorthand for the absolute independence of God's existence from anything external to him. It is the expression of God's absolute self-sufficiency, absolute independence and autonomy.

Parallel to this in the eternalist philosophy of (a mythical) spacetime are questions like: "Where is spacetime?" as if it is located in some "(super)space" and "When is spacetime?" (as if it is contained within time). The eternalist will say these are meaningless.

Thus the eternalist attributes aseity to spacetime. As we have said, both sides in the debate of atheism versus Christian theism have an ultimate. This is reflected here in the parallel of eternalism and presentism. (Presentism is the philosophical view that only the present "exists" and that three-dimensional space and objects therein persist through time. Yesterday's gone, and the future is not yet.) Only the Christian ultimate of the triune God with all of his attributes is the foundation of all of human experience. The mindless, materialist, self-existent and eternal spacetime of eternalism is incoherent and accounts for nothing.

We conclude with the observation that most modern treatments of relativistic physics uncritically "buy into" the eternalist philosophy of spacetime as an unchanging four-dimensional continuum in which past, present and future are equally real. It is a "block house" universe in which there is no actual "flow of time" and nothing "ever happens." Spacetime is a self-existent, an eternally "completed object" -- "a done deal." Thus time is an illusion. Such was the opinions of Einstein -- a dedicated idealist. Because of this pervasive view of "spacetime" (a daily dose of which can be found on the "Science channel") some Christians have uncritically adopted the myth of spacetime and also give lip service to the possibility of time travel(!). Time travel is "theoretically possible"¹ in an eternalist spacetime since the past, present and future are persistent "places" within spacetime that can be journeyed to and visited similar to the way one journeys to spatials locations in a car -- of course time travel requires a fictional "time machine" rather than a car (or maybe a time machine in a car, a la Marty McFly!) However, eternalism is not a necessary consequence of the experimental and theoretical basis of relativistic physics. It is an assumed part of antitheistic philosophy. However, it has been observed by some physicists that presentism is thoroughly consistent with relativity. Based on these observations, eternalism is not an option for a Christian theist. Tipping one's hat to the "theoretical possibility" of time travel is to believe in the eternal "block house" spacetime. It is a view that embraces two coeternal entities - God and spacetime. Consistent Christians should examine their views of "spacetime" and abandon eternalism.

---

1 Young earth creationist Jason Lisle succumbed to the eternalist view of special relativity in his book “The Physics of Einstein.” Examples from chapter 10 “How to Build a Time Machine” of that book are:

(1) that he gives lip service to time travel which is impossible in presentism;
(2) his claim that time travel is provable using the Lorentz transformation.

The second claim is a false conclusion that is based on an unstated and uncritically examined presupposition of eternalism – i.e. the presupposition that the past still exists and is a place that can be visited. Rejecting that unproven presupposition and adopting presentism (as Christian theism requires) shows that time travel is not provable from the Lorentz transformation. The mathematics of Special Relativity do not prove the possibility of time travel. The possibility of time travel is based on a commitment to a philosophical presupposition.

Here is an extended quote of Lisle:

“As we saw in the previous chapter the theory of relativity allows for the possibility of traveling backward in time if it is also possible to travel faster than the speed of light. That's the good news. The bad news is that there are some compelling reasons to think that faster than light travel is not possible, at least not for information bearing systems. We have seen hints of that in previous chapters, and we will go into greater depth in later chapters. Nonetheless, hypothetically if faster than light travel were possible, then time travel into the past would also be possible. This is provable from the Lorentz transformation, and gives us a much more profound understanding of the nature of space and time. " (emph. added)

The Lorentz transform alone does not prove time travel. It requires the extra commitment to an eternalist Minkowski spacetime as it requires the past to exist in order to be “revisited.” That is the notion that “time is a place,” which is part-and-parcel of Minkowski’s eternal block house universe as espoused by Einstein ("time is an illusion"). Lisle's "profound understanding of the nature of space and time" is infected by eternalism as his inference requires that the past is a place, sitting there waiting to be revisited, if only, we could travel faster than the speed of light. This idea is what has infected and influenced the views of “conventionality” of simultaneity, synchronization and Lisle's “Anisotropic Synchrony Convention” model.^↩