We already went over that, So Boerd, and Brovo answered well. Go look in that post.
What I think happened was that I wrote myself into a corner. I rambled way too much to rebut a very simple fallacy, and Brovo used that as an opportunity to show off his cleverness. He answered all of the points I cared about in a very satisfactory way, but the rest he seemed to be kind of an asshole about, especially the "answering every question" thing. So, I was torn. One the one hand, I was satisfied, because there had been a satisfactory clarification of his original point. On the other, I was pissed, because the post had an air of elitism and "how could you possible not know these things, you peasant?"
As too often happens, pissed won out, because the only option for satisfied was "Thank you for clarifying. Goodbye." The problem with that was, despite his cleverness, he still did not convince me on any of the points beyond the statement I made about cosmic intelligence. So, I was pissed and incoherent, I did a bad job of saying things, and I misconstrued legitimate argument as intentional inflammation. I've already apologized for both.
Here is an actual rebuttal of each of those points:
Math - I was unclear. There are lots of different kinds of math, and I was referring to the "math as the language of the universe," not the arbitrary math we use in everyday life. I brought up the golden mean as an example, because we did not create the mean; we discovered it. We have discovered formulae and created mathematical theories that describe the manner in which the universe works, and the point is that those relationships existed before we discovered them. We did not create that kind of math. It's always been there, the underlying order of the universe, just waiting to be expressed.
As for physics, well, we don't generally discover that everything is wrong, I mean, much of Newtonian physics is stil followed today, like his stuff on thermodynamics and motion. Neither relativity nor quantum mechanics have said "the laws of thermodynamics are wrong", because... They aren't. They still work. We've always been moving towards getting the biggest possible picture, and we may have rejected some of Newton in favor of the two new kids in town, but not all of it. And math will always be there, waiting for us to catch up.
Math being different in other dimensions - Again, I should have been more clear on the kind of math I meant. Arbitrary number systems =/= math in its entirety, I'm sorry for not clarifying. What I should have said was, "Is the speed of light different in other dimensions?" or "Does relativity apply in other universes?" In a nutshell, are we truly unique, here in our expanding bubble, or is there a grand order that spans all possible aspects of existence? I don't really have an answer for this one, it's kind of high concept, and obviously there's not yet any method of traveling to other dimensions to test such things. I'm just indulging myself.
Existence of other dimensions - Pretty straightforward, though to me, if you can't prove it one way or the other, that's all that I think should be said. We will eventually prove it one way or the other, and until then we just don't know whether they exist or whether they influence our own dimension or universe in any meaningful way. :) So, semantics aside, we're basically on the same page.
Is there truly any past or future? - You say yes, and my only rebuttal is the fallibility of memory and the imperfection of prediction. With your utilitarian view, it probably doesn't matter whether they are actually real or not, because as we perceive them they are useful tools for living as best we can and not going insane. Fair enough. Just because the universe could have only been created last week, it doesn't mean that really matters all that much in the grand scheme. I can dig it. If that is not what you would argue, please let me know.
What is time, and why does it exist? - Hmm. Again with the "arbitrary creation by humans" thing. Again, I was unclear, and I apologize. Just as a side-thought, though, in the imperial system the idea is that things are measured in real-world terms, and they were eventually morphed into standard measurements. The "foot" is about the length of a human foot. The "yard" is about the length of a stride or pace, three feet. Miles and inches and the like, though, I have no idea. Overall, I agree that metric is probably better for things like measuring distances between places, or large things like buildings or what have you, but on very specific, mostly human-scale measurements (height, for one), centimeters have never cut it for me. I love feet and inches. Anyway, sorry, that's a tangent.
You gave a small, half a sentence analysis on the time I wanted to refer to, and you said that it exists beyond flawed human measurements... Which is just what I'm going to say as well. Time is a force that gives form to space, one cannot meaningfully exist without the other, and to me it smacks of some kind of grand natural order to the universe, even if it isn't an intelligence in the traditional sense. A creation force, a force of order that generated space and time and determined the speed of light and the Fibonacci sequence, and the relationships between the elements, all of that. It isn't too far-fetched, I think, and before you start, it also has nothing to do with the patriarchal Abrahamic God. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a possibly unintelligent force, some kind of cosmic power that's embodied by these things. Maybe it has consciousness, maybe it doesn't...
But is it more likely than spontaneity? I will wager yes. Does it matter, in a utilitarian sense? No, but at the very least it's an interesting thought.
