Aquinas and Modern Physics

[HarryStotle]

I can see how that might seem like a reasonable explanation, but is it true? I mean there has to be some sort of “first” cause…right? Ehhhh, maybe…maybe not. I mean “first” could be a meaningless concept, even ontologically. Which came first ontologically, the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit? When it’s impossible to have one thing without another thing, then it’s also impossible to say that one of them came first. If neither of them can exist without the other, then neither of them could possibly have preceded the other.

You are ambiguating temporality with priority. The word “preceded” sneaks temporality into the dependency, as does the phrase “one of them came first.”

If two concepts or ideas have a logical dependency, wherein one is the ground for thinking the other is true, there might be an apparently temporal connection between the two, in that you would need to believe the ground before arriving at the conclusion, but that would be a function of the thinking process and not a function of the logic itself.

Similarly, the ontological dependency of the Son on the Father might lead us as humans to think there is some kind of a first priority of the Father, but that isn’t necessarily true about God, even though it is apparently true about God in the way that temporal human beings think about God.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You cannot logically confine the reference frame of time to the limited view that you have of it, currently. You do not know that there could not be an eternal (timeless or “other time”) reality that is constrained to time as we experience it. The only grounds you have for insisting that is that possibility doesn’t suit your view and that you cannot make sense of it unless it does.

Actually, he can do exactly that. Einstein’s relativity theorems tied time to space, and examination of physical data suggests that spacetime goes back to the Planck Epoch:

The point @lelinator was making was that time, as we experience it, is necessarily the reference frame for all of reality. Thus his post…

But if the world began to exist 13.8 billion years ago, then God also began to exist 13.8 billion years ago. Existing outside of time still doesn’t allow something to exist “before” time. Before time is a reference frame that simply cannot exist. You can exist for all time, but not before time.

So if the world/the universe/reality had a beginning, then so did God.

The point being that time, according to Einstein’s theorems, is an aspect of the space-time reality as we experience it in this universe. That implies time is a reference frame that applies within the universe.

It does not imply that time holds for all of reality, only for the physical/observable universe encompassed by space-time.

Thus, @lelinator’s point that Existing outside of time still doesn’t allow something to exist “before” time, is true if “something” is defined as ‘an existing thing in the universe.’ It is not true of all non-material, non-temporal existents, however. Nor to the Necessary Ground of Existence.

 

[Dovekin]

It does not imply that time holds for all of reality, only for the physical/observable universe encompassed by space-time.

Thus, @lelinator’s point that Existing outside of time still doesn’t allow something to exist “ before ” time, is true if “something” is defined as ‘an existing thing in the universe.’ It is not true of all non-material, non-temporal existents, however. Nor to the Necessary Ground of Existence.

Your point is only true if there is some other kind of time that applies to the non-material existents. We have no evidence of that as far as I know.

If time only applies to the physical/observable universe, or is a part of spacetime, then the non-material is not subject to time. The non-material cannot exist “before time” because that makes the non-material subject to time, to before and after.

This is probably an inversion of how you think about time and God. Time is tied to space. God is infinite, unbounded, so God is not finite like other time-bound existents, and so not bound to time. We say God only exists when there is time because when implies time. God only exists where there is space, because where implies place. Without spacetime, where and when are meaningless.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

It does not imply that time holds for all of reality, only for the physical/observable universe encompassed by space-time.

Thus, @lelinator’s point that Existing outside of time still doesn’t allow something to exist “ before ” time, is true if “something” is defined as ‘an existing thing in the universe.’ It is not true of all non-material, non-temporal existents, however. Nor to the Necessary Ground of Existence.

Your point is only true if there is some other kind of time that applies to the non-material existents. We have no evidence of that as far as I know.** That is it. I make no claims about time outside of this universe.

If time only applies to the physical/observable universe, or is a part of spacetime, then the non-material is not subject to time. The non-material cannot exist “before time” because that makes the non-material subject to time, to before and after.

This is probably an inversion of how you think about time and God. Time is tied to space. God is infinite, unbounded, so God is not finite like other time-bound existents, and so not bound to time. We say God only exists when there is time because when implies time. God only exists where there is space, because where implies place. Without spacetime, where and when are meaningless.

Actually, my ONLY point was that @lelinator cannot in any logically certain way claim that the timeframe we are familiar with applies to all reality.

I wasn’t making a claim that “there is some other kind of time,” simply that lelinator cannot extrapolate from how time operates in our universe, to the claim that time, as we know it, applies absolutely and universally to all reality.

 

[Dovekin]

I wasn’t making a claim that “ there is some other kind of time ,” simply that lelinator cannot extrapolate from how time operates in our universe, to the claim that time, as we know it, applies absolutely and universally to all reality.

But that is the exact inverse of what @lelinator said. He said we cannot extrapolate time to outside our universe, so we cannot say it applies to God. God is not before or after the material because that would be extrapolating time outside of spacetime.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I wasn’t making a claim that “ there is some other kind of time ,” simply that lelinator cannot extrapolate from how time operates in our universe, to the claim that time, as we know it, applies absolutely and universally to all reality.

But that is the exact inverse of what @lelinator said. He said we cannot extrapolate time to outside our universe, so we cannot say it applies to God. God is not before or after the material because that would be extrapolating time outside of spacetime.

I think you are misreading him. He said…

Before time is a reference frame that simply cannot exist. You can exist for all time, but not before time.

The implication is that time is all-encompassing. Anything outside of time cannot exist because everything occurs within the timeframe. He is claiming that God cannot exist outside of time because nothing does.

 

[Gorgias]

The point @lelinator was making was that time, as we experience it, is necessarily the reference frame for all of reality .

If by “reality” he means “the universe”, then he’d get no argument from me. If, however, he has extrapolated, such that “all reality” also means “God”, then I’d argue that he’s made an invalid extrapolation, and has not given any evidence for the assertion.

Since he says “if the world/universe/reality had a beginning, then so did God”, I’m taking that to mean that he’s using “reality” to mean “the universe”. And therefore, the assertion that God began “when” the universe began makes no sense.

Thus, @lelinator’s point that Existing outside of time still doesn’t allow something to exist “ before ” time, is true if “something” is defined as ‘an existing thing in the universe.’ It is not true of all non-material, non-temporal existents, however. Nor to the Necessary Ground of Existence.

Right.

The implication is that time is all-encompassing. Anything outside of time cannot exist because everything occurs within the timeframe. He is claiming that God cannot exist outside of time because nothing does.

And that’s the error of logic in his position.

 

[Dovekin]

Since he says “if the world/universe/reality had a beginning, then so did God”, I’m taking that to mean that he’s using “reality” to mean “the universe”. And therefore, the assertion that God began “when” the universe began makes no sense.

Exactly backwards. If you talk about an existent “beginning” or “before time”, it makes no sense. Time is needed for “begin” or “before”.

Try the geographic version. God is everywhere means God is in Russia, on Mars, circling Alpha Centauri, etc. it does not mean God is in Narnia, at Hogwarts, or in the Twilight Zone. God is everywhere refers to God being in every ‘real’ place, not in any imaginary places.

In the same way, God can only “begin” or be “before” where there is time. God does exist in all real times, like 13.7 billion years ago, but does not exist in imaginary times, like 13.9 billion years ago. If we speak of God in temporal terms, it can only be when time really exists.

 

[Wesrock]

If God never created there would be no time but God would still exist in his transcendent way. God never began or became. God is not side by side with time, or in time. Any type of duration (time) is dependent on his creative action.

 

[rom]

I recommend that we fine tune our language when speaking about time. It may avoid unnecessary controversies.

First of all, time is the duration of material beings. Therefore, it only exists as long as matter exists. Let us now assume that we have a material world that began to exist at time T0, and which ceased to exist (got annihilated) at time T4. Then the duration of this world extended from T0 to T4. I call this real time. It is measurable and divisible. However, I will call any time before T0 or any time after T4 as imaginary time. Therefore, according to this terminology, I will understand the phrase “time before time” as the imaginary time before real time, and the phrase “time after time” as the imaginary time after real time.

Second, real time has three components: the past, the present (the “now”), and the future. Consider now a point T2 intermediate (not necessarily midway) between T0 and T4, and that T2 is the present time. Then any time between T0 and T2 is past, and any time between T2 and T4 is future. But what about the time before T0? Does it not also belong to the past? I’d say it belongs to the imaginary past; likewise, any time after T4 belongs to the imaginary future. Of course, if you do not know the time T4 when the world will cease to exist, then you always have the right to think of any time ahead of you as future until the world ends. But when the world ends, then there is no more real future because there is no more real time. By definition, real time is the duration of a material world, and it extends only from the time T0 when the world began, to the time T4 when the world ended.

Third, if there is a conscious being in our hypothetical world, then he will be aware of the passing of time. And this time is measurable and divisible. If he is a mathematician, then he can regard time as a dimension for purposes of measurement. He can then also imagine a spacetime model of the world (a 4D model) that can take any number of possible configurations: finite, infinite, positively curved, negatively curved, or even flat. The best model to choose would be the one that best fits the observed physical data of science. The spacetime model is, therefore, a useful tool for predicting the behavior and motion of bodies in the world. But it is just a useful model of reality. It is not reality itself. You can model the heart as a mechanical pump. That does not make the heart a real mechanical pump. Likewise, you can model our world as a 4D world, but that does not make the world a real 4D world. It is really just a 3D world that has no actual physical existence except in the present, or the “now.” For the past no longer is; and the future is not yet. Only the present world actually exists, and the spacetime model does not exist except in the imagination, because it includes the past and future world that don’t actually exist except in the imagination.

 

[rom]

Fourth, let us assume that there is a second world that existed from time T0’ to T4’. Then that time is also real time, and it is distinct from the real time of the first world. We call this proper time. Each world, and each body, has its own proper time.

Fifth, if there is a mathematician in the second world, and he is unaware of the existence of the first world, then his reckoning of time would be independent of that of the first world. However, if the two worlds temporally overlap and he is aware of the first world, and knows that it existed prior to the birth of his world (T0 < T0’), then he might adopt a common time between the two worlds by considering T0 as the absolute beginning of time. The absolute end of time will then be when all matter cease to exist, which will be the greater of T4 or T4’.

Sixth, God, being an immutable being, has an eternal duration. Eternal duration does not mean an “infinitely long time.” Because it is not time at all. It is possible to have a material world that exists for an infinitely long time, but it will still be a temporal, not an eternal world. A material world that has no beginning, and that exists forever, is an everlasting world, but not an eternal world. Eternity is the duration only of an immutable being.

Seventh, assuming that this material world had a beginning, is it meaningful to say that God existed before it? Yes, as long as the word “before” is understood in terms of being. God is outside of time, just as He is outside space. With bodies in space, it is also possible to speak of “before” and “after.” For example, consider three bodies A, B, and C arranged in a row. It is meaningful to say that spatially A is before B and C is after B. What about God? Is He spatially before (or after) A, B, or C? No, you cannot say anything of the sort, since He is outside space. In the same manner, since God is outside time, you cannot say that God is temporally before or after the material world. He just is.

Eight, having said all the above, it is possible to speak of simultaneity between the present world and God’s eternity. Again this must be understood in terms of being, not solely in terms of time. In this case two beings are simultaneous when at the instant that one being exists in one duration, the other being also exists in this or another duration. Given this definition, every instant in the world’s duration is simultaneous with God’s duration (eternity), but not the other way around. The eternal NOW covers existence in and beyond time.

Ninth, God is outside space. He is not spatially before or after the world. But since He is the source of the world’s being, it is meaningful to say that God is everywhere in the world. As there is simultaneity between the world’s time and eternity, so there is an analogous “simultaneous presence” between the world’s existence in space and God’s presence in it. God is not confined to be in any particular place, but He is certainly present wherever matter is, because it is He who conserves matter in existence.

 

[lelinator]

That’s all great stuff @rom, but it could be deduced from those nine premises that God is simply a quantum field, with no consciousness, intent, or free will.

 

[Gorgias]

Try the geographic version. God is everywhere means God is in Russia, on Mars, circling Alpha Centauri, etc.

It’s not literal, at least not in a physical sense.

If we speak of God in temporal terms, it can only be when time really exists.

That’s the problem. If you’re speaking of God “in temporal terms”, you’re already talking nonsense.

(Now Jesus is a different story, but you’re not talking about him, I presume.)

That’s all great stuff @rom, but it could be deduced from those nine premises that God is simply a quantum field

OK… at this point, @lelinator, I’ve gotta ask you: how do you define a “quantum field”?

 

[Wesrock]

That’s all great stuff @rom, but it could be deduced from those nine premises that God is simply a quantum field, with no consciousness, intent, or free will.

The First Cause cannot be without consciousness, intent, or free will, or have any extension in space or change. Do you include consciousness, intent, free will, having no extension, and immutability as part of a quantum field?

 

[IWantGod]

OK… at this point, @lelinator, I’ve gotta ask you: how do you define a “quantum field”?

Heads up, it’s nothing like how scientists would describe it.

 

[Dovekin]

A quick assessment of your points, that may need refinement later.

1. Real and imaginary time. Part of what I just said, so I guess I have to go along with it.
2. Past, present and future. Basic stuff, I agree.
3. Imaginary stretched to cover past and future. Not a good “fine tunng.” Besides, it is wrong. Time and distance are both mental constructs to describe the world; if there is no 4d there is no 3d either. (unless you get the special glasses)
4. Proper time. We have been discussing universes, that cannot observe other universes. Proper is fine for that, but not really for other objects.
5. Proper overextended. Might be right, but sort of off topic. Relativity is a better way to understand, and language should be different from that for universes.
6. Eternal duration is not an “infinitely long time.”
7. God before time. You say Yes, then argue for not saying it, so I have no idea what you mean.
8. Simultaneity. Sigh. The unexplained distinction between being and time becomes critical here, unlike earlier allusions to it. Fine tuning should eliminate time language like duration and simultaneous.
9. Space is like time in 8. Time in 8 is problematic, so this is kind of iffy.

Those are the nit picking arguments. Putting them together coherently is beyond me right now, but there are probably refinements on that level.

 

[lelinator]

OK… at this point, @lelinator, I’ve gotta ask you: how do you define a “quantum field”?

…Patiently waiting for Freddy to get back from suspension.

 

[Dovekin]

It’s not literal, at least not in a physical sense.

It is not physical, but it is literal.

And yes, the overall problem is applying time language to God. I am only insisting on this to make the point about the difference between us and God. We are in time and space, but time and space are in God. Time does not govern God, God governs time.

Talking about “God before time” places God in the framework of time. Time that encompasses all, including God, was destroyed by Relativity theory that treats time as a 4th dimension.

 

[AlNg]

may need refinement later.

1. Real and imaginary time.

Imaginary time is real time which has undergone a Wick rotation. It is not imaginary in the sense that it is unreal, but it is time expressed using the imaginary number i, or the squareroot of -1. Wick rotations relate quantum field theories to statistical mechanical models.

 

[lelinator]

Imaginary time is real time which has undergone a Wick rotation. It is not imaginary in the sense that it is unreal, but it is time expressed using the imaginary number i, or the squareroot of -1. Wick rotations relate quantum field theories to statistical mechanical models.

AINg, while I’m patiently waiting, I have a silly question. Both relativity and quantum mechanics suggest that the past, present, and future may all exist at once, in some sort of block universe. They also suggest that cause and effect work equally well in both directions. From that theory, arises the idea that all time, affects all time, all the time.

But what would such a reality even look like? And is it possible that what I see, affects what I see? In other words, if I look at the world around me, does what I “think” I see, affect what I actually “do” see? For example, if I think that I see a world in which evolution is true, will I inevitably see a world in which evolution is true? And if I think that I see a world in which God exists, will I inevitably see a world in which God exists? And if there’s some ambiguity in what I think that I’ll see, will the world reflect that ambiguity?

Is that what an observer created reality would actually look like? What I think I’ll see, will inevitably turn out to be what I do see? And is this all an inevitable consequence of all time, affecting all time, all the time?

Yup, crazy…right?