Assuming there is no such thing as time, how do you describe motion in a hypothetical universe?

[Pag_Hingowa]

Anyone?

 

[GEddie]

Without linear time (which is driven by entropy), bodies can move, but the result would be comparable to the phenomenon we know as bilocation.

ICXC NIKA

 

[FooFee]

Time is a construct of the creation. I would not assume that time does not exist in this universe. You may wish to read the works of Fr. George Lemaitre.

 

[GEddie]

A construct of this universe, true, but not of all possible such, and not of eternity.

ICXC NIKA

 

[empther]

Time has no substantial existence.
It is a mental concept we use to measure change in things that do exist.

Or, to rephrase…

The duration of something in existence is time and it is real, although the duration, another mental concept, does not exist.

It could probably be rephrased in other ways, but I’m sure you get the idea.

Since God doesn’t change, he is outside time, but in reference to our existence, God’s duration in time “continues”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Anyone?

It depends on what you mean by time. If you are talking about change, then the rejection of time would mean the rejection of change, and to speak of an illusion of change is to contradict the rejection of change; because to experience an illusion of change requires a person to experience a procession of distinct sequences.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Anyone?

Where ever there is movement or change there is the passage of time. Time does not only relate to celestial objects orbiting a world. If a world exists it exists in the passing of time. The movement and change can be existence itself. Existence does not stand still. It moves forward in relation to each passing moment. Even if there is no physical change within the world, its existence is still one moment after another.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

A construct of this universe, true, but not of all possible such, and not of eternity.

ICXC NIKA

Time has to exist where ever you are, in any universe and even in eternity. Time is not a construct of the universe. It is a permeation of existence, itself. It (time) is an aspect of existence, every passing moment existence experiences time. If you move your arm you can relate a passage of time. If you have a thought you can relate a passage of time. By blankly staring into space, not moving, not thinking, you can relate a passage of time. This is how I know every passing moment is an experience of time within existence. Existence itself just doesn’t stand still but is alive and moves forward through time.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Time has no substantial existence.
It is a mental concept we use to measure change in things that do exist.

Or, to rephrase…

The duration of something in existence is time and it is real, although the duration, another mental concept, does not exist.

It could probably be rephrased in other ways, but I’m sure you get the idea.

Since God doesn’t change, he is outside time, but in reference to our existence, God’s duration in time “continues”.

Time is not merely a concept. Existence emanates the passage of time. Without any movement or change in the physical world, Existence is every passing moment. Existence doesn’t stand still at a point, if it did then we could not exist nor anything else.
Time has real existence. It permeates existence and is an aspect of existence. Time is what makes existence possible so it is tangible.

Remember, without time existence would be a point and would end. Time stretches out existence which makes all of us possible.

 

[Katholish]

Sacred Heart,

Time is not an essential attribute of existence. I am afriad that you have that wrong. You could argue that it is a essential for all created things, but it is a de fide teaching of the Church that time does not apply to God.

Time, by definition, is a measure of change. Existence does not necessitate change, there can be completely immutable existence, and indeed such is the case with God.

 

[greylorn]

Anyone?

Excellent question, one I’ve considered for many years. Time does not exist, but clocks do, and they are what we use to create arbitrary “ticks” of time.

If time does not exist, then neither does motion, which by definition is a function of both space and time. Therefore looking for a way to measure motion seems fruitless. What you really want to measure is not motion, but the change of the relative position of things. At least, so it would seem.

The mathematical solution might be to treat both motion and time as artifacts of changes in position (which is fundamentally all that is needed to make a clock), at least at the atomic level. This means treating atoms as little asynchronous state machines, and treating particles as momentary stable states, much like the flip-flops in a digital computer.

This could require the creation of a mathematical form which involves a combination of boolean algebra and asynchronous wave mechanics, exactly the kind of thing needed to build a fully asynchronous digital computer.

I don’t think that this has been accomplished yet, despite many R&D efforts, so you have your work cut out for you. I’ve broached the idea to only two mathematicians; one thought it absurd, the other felt unqualified to pursue it, but we are still looking for smarter people.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Sacred Heart,

Time is not an essential attribute of existence. I am afriad that you have that wrong. You could argue that it is a essential for all created things, but it is a de fide teaching of the Church that time does not apply to God.

Time, by definition, is a measure of change. Existence does not necessitate change, there can be completely immutable existence, and indeed such is the case with God.

What is one moment of existence to the next moment of existence but a measurement of time. If there was one moment of existence but no time there would not be another moment of existence. Time allows existence to be. Existence is movement, itself, from one moment to the next, even when the physical world is not changed around an object, nor does the object change but its existence persists from one moment to the next, time permeates existence. Existence necessetates change since a sustained existence would require a course of time. If existence didn’t require time it would simply exist as a point and then cease but since it is evident that existence persists, as we are witness, then time would be required for continued existence.

God is not absent from time but Master of it. God experiences time as its Master. It’s ridiculous to say that God does not interact with time. At least, does not his Omnipresence experience time? If God is present everywhere then isn’t it logical to conclude that God exists within time?

To say that God does not experience time is to know nothing. If God moves his arm then he is experiencing a passage of time. If God has a thought then he is experiencing the passage of time. If there is any movement about God then he is experiencing the passage of time. Even at rest God experiences the passage of time because existence is moment to moment. Yet, I do not disregard that God is Master of time.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Excellent question, one I’ve considered for many years. Time does not exist, but clocks do, and they are what we use to create arbitrary “ticks” of time.

If time does not exist, then neither does motion, which by definition is a function of both space and time. Therefore looking for a way to measure motion seems fruitless. What you really want to measure is not motion, but the change of the relative position of things. At least, so it would seem.

The mathematical solution might be to treat both motion and time as artifacts of changes in position (which is fundamentally all that is needed to make a clock), at least at the atomic level. This means treating atoms as little asynchronous state machines, and treating particles as momentary stable states, much like the flip-flops in a digital computer.

This could require the creation of a mathematical form which involves a combination of boolean algebra and asynchronous wave mechanics, exactly the kind of thing needed to build a fully asynchronous digital computer.

I don’t think that this has been accomplished yet, despite many R&D efforts, so you have your work cut out for you. I’ve broached the idea to only two mathematicians; one thought it absurd, the other felt unqualified to pursue it, but we are still looking for smarter people.

If time does not exist then why does a clock give accurate measurements? And what does it measure? Its delusional to think that time does not exist. What is the persistence of your existence? Do you believe distance exists (like a physical distance, ie. miles)? What does a clock measure but the length of existence. You don’t think length applies to existence, as in the concept of time? If there was no time then how do you exist from one moment to the next? Don’t you perceive any passage of time within your mind? Don’t you know you’ve been alive for more than a second (a length of time that measures existence)?

 

[Katholish]

What is one moment of existence to the next moment of existence but a measurement of time. If there was one moment of existence but no time there would not be another moment of existence.

“Moment” is a word that describes time. You can only have two different moments when there is some kind of change present. You then have a “before” and an “after”, two different moments. Instead of saying one “moment” of existence, we can say one instance of existence. One instance of existence does not require time, but if you say one “moment” you are already presupposing time and change.

Time allows existence to be.

No, it does not. I don’t know where this notion has come from, and I am happy to debate it, but please understand that it is absolutely at odds with the Catholic Faith and indeed monotheism in general, for it denies the very eternity and immutability of God.

Existence is movement, itself, from one moment to the next, even when the physical world is not changed around an object, nor does the object change but its existence persists from one moment to the next, time permeates existence.

Nope. Existence is being. Movement requires existence, but not the other way round. You seem to be trying to state that a change in moments does not require a change at all. What then is the basis for differentiating the moments? All movement is a change from potentiality to act. All movement involves a coming into a certain state of being (or existence), all movement is a change toward actualization. Being actual, however, does not require that a thing was once not actualized, and hence does not imply that there was ever movement. If a thing starts off as pure act, there is no movement, no moments, no time, just existence. Such is the case with God.

God is not absent from time but Master of it. God experiences time as its Master. It’s ridiculous to say that God does not interact with time. At least, does not his Omnipresence experience time? If God is present everywhere then isn’t it logical to conclude that God exists within time?

To be eternal means to be outside of time. God does not experience time, such a statement doesn’t even make sense. Time is a property only of mutable things, because time by definition is a measure of change and only mutable things can change. God cannot change, hence there is no change to measure, and no time.

No, omnipresence absolutely does not imply nor require time. Time is not a place.

To say that God does not experience time is to know nothing. If God moves his arm then he is experiencing a passage of time. If God has a thought then he is experiencing the passage of time. If there is any movement about God then he is experiencing the passage of time. Even at rest God experiences the passage of time because existence is moment to moment. Yet, I do not disregard that God is Master of time.

God is immaterial, He does not have an arm to move. If you are referring to the incarnate Word, then it is only proper to say that the experience of time is proper to Christ’s human nature, but not the divine Nature. Neither does God have thoughts which change. His knowledge does not grow and His will never changes. Expressions in Sacred Scripture sometimes refer to God as having almost human traits, but these expressions are understood as anthropomorphic. These expresses help us understand God from our human perspective, but are not meant as a philosophical treatise on the Divine Nature.

I realize that you do not now see the truth of what I am saying, but I say that this is not some personal opinion of mine. I am not claiming the divine nature and the attributes of God are easy things to understand, but there can be no real doubt about the fact that God is immutable and eternal, unchanging and completely outside of time.

 

[JimmytheButcher]

If you want some real fun with that question, ask a widely accepted Muslim meta-physician. You’ll get a really wild answer about destroyed and re-created particles.

I think the answer provided by Biblical Fundamentalism is telling. You see, God was apparently asked this very question. His holy and venerable response being, “Be still and know that I AM.” So, God, by all appearances, contends that He desires us to not move at all, and therefore all ‘movers’ are anti-christs.

As to the ancient Christian answer, other than my being a man infused by baptismal virtue, I am simply no philosopher at all. I will try my best using only commonsense. I think my answer goes something like this:

Movement without respect to time is an act of the will. In this way, perhaps, movement without respect to time is related to the act of love.

Again, I am not philosopher, but I am a failed physicist and a failure at life in general.

I think Tolkien would answer that question by applying a couplet and a rhyme:

Frodo and Sam came down a hill,
Then Gandalf slipped and time stood still.

I wonder what the Mormon answer would be. I expect it would rather transcendental, with varied answers depending upon the barometric pressure and/or how much Emerson they drank.

 

[John21652]

Anyone?

Motion equals change.
Time measures change.
No motion, no change, no time.

 

[cho_pilo]

Without linear time (which is driven by entropy), bodies can move, but the result would be comparable to the phenomenon we know as bilocation.

ICXC NIKA

“Bilocation” is not a scientifically meaningful or even well-defined term.

 

[cho_pilo]

Motion equals change.
Time measures change.
No motion, no change, no time.

Are you sure? If one considers time inevitably linked to change as measurement parameter, let’s add absolute zero into the equation and theory. This would give us no movement and yet we would still have time! Hmmm.

 

[GEddie]

“Bilocation” is not a scientifically meaningful or even well-defined term.

Of course it isn’t. But your question is not a scientific one.

Movement is indefinable scientifically without that letter “t”.

It is, in fact, the time derivative of position.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Are you sure? If one considers time inevitably linked to change as measurement parameter, let’s add absolute zero into the equation and theory. This would give us no movement and yet we would still have time! Hmmm.

Absolute zero is an unreachable point.

Since there is no heat at absolute zero, there would also be no entropy, and possibly no measurable time.

But we could never experience this, as our heads would not function at absolute zero, either.

ICXC NIKA