tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post8239756766809792826..comments2022-12-08T02:30:00.729-08:00Comments on Beginning Theistic Science: Final Causes: Needed, or Always Present?Ian Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-7190842958610525752012-05-03T10:25:02.257-07:002012-05-03T10:25:02.257-07:00You are referring to Two Ways of Looking At Time. ...You are referring to <a href="http://www.ianthompson.org/papers/Time-Cogito1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Two Ways of Looking At Time</a>. It that time (1987) I had the main ideas that I present in my new book. In fact, I realize that I had an interest in causation that influenced both my philosophical & regular physics investigations. That interest came in large part from reading about Swedenborg in 1974, I now suspect. Before that, I was more interested in structure and form, and less in dynamics & causation. The main ideas in my "Philosophy of Nature and Quantum Reality" book were generated in 1975. I guess I have been sort of consistent. It took me a while, though, to see the full connections between love & causation.Ian Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13225626428359340605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-2611049971529269052012-04-15T12:12:27.285-07:002012-04-15T12:12:27.285-07:00Ian, I'm reading an older essay you did called...Ian, I'm reading an older essay you did called "Two Ways of Looking At Time". I'm wondering 1.) when you talked of causation back then: i.e. " ...The process view of time allows for more dramatic 'effective causes' that bring into being their effects." were you talking of the same type causes as above? You didn't endorse any of the 4 ways you described of looking at time, but you concluded with causation, which makes it seem like even back then you had the same ideas that you put into your latest book. So, 2.) have your ideas really not changed much along the way? And if not, is that because in reading Swedenborg you came to conclusions that you later sort of 'proved' rather than changed?<br />Or would you describe the physics or philosophy of time differently than you did a couple of decades ago? Partly, I'm in awe of your consistency, if that's what it is, in your prolific online resources. Partly I'm wondering why modern physics does not seem to have new theories about time. Or have I just not come across them? Could you do a post about time sometime?Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122828543615175957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3766820554494978106.post-35758715688588880492012-04-05T07:21:21.283-07:002012-04-05T07:21:21.283-07:00Thanks for the mention. Yes, I wasn't sure wh...Thanks for the mention. Yes, I wasn't sure whether the tension in my mind was due to tension in the model (as you seem to suggest), or just the fact that I didn't quite understand it enough. Probably a little of both.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com