Suppose that ultimately reality was essentially indivisible. There would be no time or space since there are no separate objects to be relative to one another in space or time. In an indivisible whole no individual objects actually exist but there could be phenomena that are continuous with the whole if the whole is not perfectly uniform and is dynamic. In such a reality areas of differing "density" could constitute fundamental phenomena which might then interact to produce more complex phenomena.

Now suppose that a class of phenomena arose within the whole that was sensitive, in some way, to a limited range of other phenomena within the whole. In other words, imagine that these sensitive phenomena could "see" a limited range of other phenomena within the whole. To the sensitive phenomena the phenomena that they could detect would seem to them to be separate objects separated by space (the aspects of the whole not detected by the sensitive phenomena) between them. This would also constitute the advent of time since the sensitive phenomena could appear to move between the objects and they would appear to move closer and further away from each other. Such movements would take time.

With the appearance of sensitive phenomena time, space, and motion would occur simultaneously. Their ability to detect only limited aspects of the whole would be responsible for the appearance separate objects, time, space, and motion. Note, these qualities would only be apparent to the sensitive phenomena and would not be features of the indivisible reality itself.

Could it be that we are such sensitive phenomena and that objects, time, space, and motion are simply artifacts of our limited perceptions of an essentially indivisible whole?

Suppose that ultimately reality was essentially indivisible. There would be no time or space since there are no separate objects to be relative to one another in space or time. In an indivisible whole no individual objects actually exist but there could be phenomena that are continuous with the whole if the whole is not perfectly uniform and is dynamic. In such a reality areas of differing "density" could constitute fundamental phenomena which might then interact to produce more complex phenomena.

Now suppose that a class of phenomena arose within the whole that was sensitive, in some way, to a limited range of other phenomena within the whole. In other words, imagine that these sensitive phenomena could "see" a limited range of other phenomena within the whole. To the sensitive phenomena the phenomena that they could detect would seem to them to be separate objects separated by space (the aspects of the whole not detected by the sensitive phenomena) between them. This would also constitute the advent of time since the sensitive phenomena could appear to move between the objects and they would appear to move closer and further away from each other. Such movements would take time.

With the appearance of sensitive phenomena time, space, and motion would occur simultaneously. Their ability to detect only limited aspects of the whole would be responsible for the appearance separate objects, time, space, and motion. Note, these qualities would only be apparent to the sensitive phenomena and would not be features of the indivisible reality itself.

Could it be that we are such sensitive phenomena and that objects, time, space, and motion are simply artifacts of our limited perceptions of an essentially indivisible whole?

Belinda wrote:TFindlay, yes, and if you look again at the indivisible whole you can understnd that the separable phenomena, us, are also parts of the indivisible whole. The reason for this is that the whole cannot be whole unless it encompasses everything.

There could be other, unconscious, entities that are separable parts of the whole and which are also necessarily wholistic for the same reason, i.e. that the whole cannot be whole unless it necessarily encompasses what can otherwise be viewed as separable entities.I am trying to explain the dual aspect theory of existence: please not to be confused with Cartesian dualism !

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. We may be an indivisible reality experiencing itself as entities in a contingent and relative universe.

To revert to the original topic of relativity: are the theories of relativity falsifiable? If so what sort of evidence would falsify them?

If reality is ultimately indivisible then relativity itself is an artifact of perception, not a feature of reality itself.

Belinda wrote:Christianity may possibly adapt to this scenario which actually does accord with modern science and philosophy and which has ethical implications that are in the main consistent with all the world class religions,and not only Christianity.
If Christians dispense with the transcendence of God and retain and magnify the immanence of God the scenario as briefly summed up by Tfindlay can be understood by means of myth and praxis as well as intellectually.

I'm not sure Christians would go for this since their religion is predicated on a God that transcends nature. Abandoning the transcendent God would amount to blasphemy for a Christian.

Belinda, I have been trying to figure out where "theism" comes into pantheism. If God is seen to be immanent in nature what is His role? What is the need for God being there at all? Couldn't we just leave it at natural law?

Belinda wrote:I am sure that we could just leave it at natural law, except for the so-apparent desire of people to be poetical and ceremonial about the human behaviours and morals that arise from natural laws.
What Tfindlay wrote in #11 affects my feelings as well as my intellect, and Deus, immanent Deus, is for me a suitable 'object' for my feelings to be directed towards. Others may not feel like this, but my impression is that many people if not most people have feelings about transcending their humanity towards something better. The Deus of pantheism is not of course transcendent in the ontological sense.

It really is time for people to put away childish things and the ontologocally transcendent creator deity is a childish thing.

Please accept my apologies for starting this tangent from the OP.

And my apologies for pursuing this tangent.

Belinda, I believe I understand your position now and I would not have us do away with the poetical or ceremonial aspects of an appropriate reverence for nature.