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

[MindOverMatter2]

If you are a follower of Aquinas, you should know that he did NOT ascribe potency to God…

I don’t think tony meant that God is a potential being. But rather God eternally actualizes potential beings.

 

[brumano]

The notion of God as some kind of “energy” being may not be incompatible with Church teachings. However, it is fourth-rate pop-theology which makes no sense from the perspective of physics

.

It is popular for religionists to hide behind the ineffable spiritual, and I’ve become accustomed to assuming that anyone who, in a physics conversation, reverts to something described as spiritual, understands neither perspective.

If God is “intelligent energy,” then by definition God is physical. You cannot have it both ways.

To us it’s not a notion it’s a truth, but you left out the big four letter word; love. Maybe we can pry this fourth rate pop theology up to a 3 or a 2 in your rankings. I did not say that He is energy only, that would be useless, and we sure don’t say that He does not have a body when He certainly does. He has personhood also, just like you have.

 

[greylorn]

I wonder who the “tunnel rats” are…

The term tunnel rat was invented during the Viet Nam war, and applied to a small class of individuals who had the cohones to enter underground tunnels constructed by the Viet Cong and go after whatever bad guys they found down there.

While it may sound like a derogatory term to those who sat on their butts in comfy homes during wartime, it was applied by soldiers to the most courageous of their lot, those very few who were willing to take extraordinary risks, alone, in support of their fellow men.

 

[JDaniel]

**“If all motion ceased, would there still be time?”

Right now I don’t see how that does answer my question, because ALL the actions I mentioned involve some sort of motion.**

Jason:

Interesting. And, uncannily, they all involve time.

Also the dimensions of space-time, (we know from Relativity), are not independent.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Cho:

Not so. All you’ve done is propose an abstraction. Abstractions aren’t really real.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

What if change does not require motion?

Greylorn:

Of course change requires motion, in a bit wider sense of motion. Change requires a before and an after, exactly as does motion. The exact simultaneity of a before and an after is a clear cut case of ontological contradiction.

Time does not measure change. Our clocks, our timekeeping devices, use change to measure time. You have this exactly backward.

Greylorn! Good grief! Our clocks are our measuring devices. You have it backward.

Your argument is circular, making it a tautology, I think, or at the very least, non-definitive.

Not so. You need to re-look at your own position.

God bless,
jd

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Jason:

If all motion ceased, would there still be time?

God bless,
jd

How can one “transition” from Purgatory to Heaven, if there is no time ?

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

Of course change requires motion, in a bit wider sense of motion. Change requires a before and an after, exactly as does motion. The exact simultaneity of a before and an after is a clear cut case of ontological contradiction.

Greylorn! Good grief! Our clocks are our measuring devices. You have it backward.

Not so. You need to re-look at your own position.

God bless,
jd

Jd,
I understand your objections. A few years ago, before giving some thought to the matter, I would have raised them myself.

Consider motion pictures. You know that there is no motion in a motion picture. You see a series of still images projected at a frequency fast enough to confuse your brain into mistaking them for motion.

You also know that the time perceived in a movie is a function of the projection rate and has no absolute value.

There is motion behind the scenes, within the projector, as the film is moved. This is blocked from your view.

Consider video images. The same movie appearing on a video screen, encoded on a DVD, has no motion at the core of its image source. The disk has a lot of binary bits encoding ones and zeros. Yes, the disk spins and the read-head maintains positions along its track, but that is behind-scenes stuff, motion that we do not see.

Pay attention to the way new ideas appear in your mind. If you are like most people you will find that they appear instantly, fully formed, without the passage of time.

Then, consider quantum mechanics. The evidence shows discontinuities in something-- could be time, or it could be motion.

How do you interpret what goes on in quantum tunneling? When an electron appears on the other side of a barrier which it lacked the energy to breach, what happened? Other than that the darn thing simply winks out of formal existence, then pops back into existence somewhere else, without moving through the intervening space or taking a measurable number of ticks to do this, have you a better explanation?

Then, a mathematician who forgets more math in a day than I’ve ever learned, informed me that when relativity and QM are mathematically reconciled, time disappears from the resulting equation.

I’m not presenting any ideas on CAF from the position that they are necessarily right. I have no sacred books to quote. All I can offer is my limited understanding of physics, my certain belief in Creation, and my mind’s best attempts to reconcile the differences between them.

I trust that if you thoughtfully consider these ideas, and take the evidence I’ve offered in their behalf into full and honest account, briefly suspending your beliefs during the process, you might be slower to ridicule my thoughts on the matter.

 

[JDaniel]

Jd,
I understand your objections. A few years ago, before giving some thought to the matter, I would have raised them myself.

Consider motion pictures. You know that there is no motion in a motion picture. You see a series of still images projected at a frequency fast enough to confuse your brain into mistaking them for motion.

You also know that the time perceived in a movie is a function of the projection rate and has no absolute value.

There is motion behind the scenes, within the projector, as the film is moved. This is blocked from your view.

Consider video images. The same movie appearing on a video screen, encoded on a DVD, has no motion at the core of its image source. The disk has a lot of binary bits encoding ones and zeros. Yes, the disk spins and the read-head maintains positions along its track, but that is behind-scenes stuff, motion that we do not see.

Pay attention to the way new ideas appear in your mind. If you are like most people you will find that they appear instantly, fully formed, without the passage of time.

Then, consider quantum mechanics. The evidence shows discontinuities in something-- could be time, or it could be motion.

How do you interpret what goes on in quantum tunneling? When an electron appears on the other side of a barrier which it lacked the energy to breach, what happened? Other than that the darn thing simply winks out of formal existence, then pops back into existence somewhere else, without moving through the intervening space or taking a measurable number of ticks to do this, have you a better explanation?

Then, a mathematician who forgets more math in a day than I’ve ever learned, informed me that when relativity and QM are mathematically reconciled, time disappears from the resulting equation.

I’m not presenting any ideas on CAF from the position that they are necessarily right. I have no sacred books to quote. All I can offer is my limited understanding of physics, my certain belief in Creation, and my mind’s best attempts to reconcile the differences between them.

I trust that if you thoughtfully consider these ideas, and take the evidence I’ve offered in their behalf into full and honest account, briefly suspending your beliefs during the process, you might be slower to ridicule my thoughts on the matter.

Greylorn:

I have not ridiculed your thoughts in a very long time, right? And, I am not ridiculing them now. I understand the motion picture - as a young man just before entering college, I managed a movie theater. We had projectors that used film. So, I know what our minds do when presented with that fiction. But, I also know that when my hand, holding a fork with food, moves to my mouth and I thereafter chew on the food and swallow it, that real motion is taking place (or, took place). Real motion. Not a mental fiction.

Also, I know that those old projectors can be speed-ed up or slowed down. Nevertheless, I know that either I am being sadly tricked, or that there was real motion (somewhere) while I watched the movie, and that I am an hour and a half older upon exiting the theater, not to mention that the darned sun changed position.

In my head, ideas seem to pop in instantaneously. But, that may only mean that I did not concentrate on what prompted my read/write head to read some ones and zeros on other tracks, then compose them somewhat differently than I ever remember. This proves the fact that, unless I studied neurosurgery, or practiced it, I could never come up with an idea about how it should be properly performed.

As to the quantum tunneling example, I would tend to explain it as the initial electron had sufficient energy that when it struck one side of the barrier, an electron from the other side popped loose, maintaining the equilibrium of the barrier’s matter. Or, that the electron found plenty of “space” within the material of the barrier to slip through the empty spaces between the material’s nuclei and their respective electrons. But then, I’d have to know that it was the same electron I started with.

Again, I don’t think you can call what I’ve written “ridicule” in any way. Just two guys, having cocktails, and discussing stuff.

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

In a way this is frustrating, but in another way, what could be better? For those who play games only to win, the search for genuine understanding must terminate in some form of arbitrary and therefore false dogma to which he can apply the “truth” label.

For those who play games in hopes of being invited back to play again, I can imagine none more interesting than the full resolution of the physics-theology conflict. You will probably never have time to explore all the tunnel branches, much less the few that have answers waiting at their terminus, but you may meet some interesting tunnel rats along the way.

Does physics unite the two?

Pay attention to the way new ideas appear in your mind. If you are like most people you will find that they appear instantly, fully formed, without the passage of time.

Here is where I am lost. So thoughts reflect the nature of these “in and out of existence” particles/energy? (that was worded terribly)

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

I have not ridiculed your thoughts in a very long time, right? And, I am not ridiculing them now. I understand the motion picture - as a young man just before entering college, I managed a movie theater. We had projectors that used film. So, I know what our minds do when presented with that fiction. But, I also know that when my hand, holding a fork with food, moves to my mouth and I thereafter chew on the food and swallow it, that real motion is taking place (or, took place). Real motion. Not a mental fiction.

Also, I know that those old projectors can be speed-ed up or slowed down. Nevertheless, I know that either I am being sadly tricked, or that there was real motion (somewhere) while I watched the movie, and that I am an hour and a half older upon exiting the theater, not to mention that the darned sun changed position.

In my head, ideas seem to pop in instantaneously. But, that may only mean that I did not concentrate on what prompted my read/write head to read some ones and zeros on other tracks, then compose them somewhat differently than I ever remember. This proves the fact that, unless I studied neurosurgery, or practiced it, I could never come up with an idea about how it should be properly performed.

As to the quantum tunneling example, I would tend to explain it as the initial electron had sufficient energy that when it struck one side of the barrier, an electron from the other side popped loose, maintaining the equilibrium of the barrier’s matter. Or, that the electron found plenty of “space” within the material of the barrier to slip through the empty spaces between the material’s nuclei and their respective electrons. But then, I’d have to know that it was the same electron I started with.

Again, I don’t think you can call what I’ve written “ridicule” in any way. Just two guys, having cocktails, and discussing stuff.

God bless,
jd

JD,
Thanks for the come back. I apologize for my use of “ridicule,” which was inappropriate, and which poorly serves a relationship which has had some gnarly moments before settling in to something more interesting. “Blown off” would have been a more accurate and non pejorative choice.

Of course the arguments I’ve proposed can be dismissed, but you might find them worth more serious consideration. They represent two or three pieces of the puzzle I’ve been trying to assemble, a comprehensive theory of everything which includes God and consciousness.

Lucky that the movie/projector analysis connected with your experience. I intended it as an analogy, something to demonstrate that the appearance of motion does not imply the actual existence of motion.

Of course, there are events. Specifically, the universe seems to be constructed from an aggregate of extremely small components (atoms) which are assembled into the larger components we see moving around. There are cause and effect relationships between all of these, which determine the sequence of events. And that, a sequence of events which could be static, is enough to describe the mechanics of both atoms and galaxies.

We use time because it is convenient, but time is not essential to change. Only change is position is essential.

I propose that electrons do not actually orbit an atomic nucleus. They appear in discrete points within spaces we call shells. Then they disappear, and reappear elsewhere, like movie frames.

Because each atom is autonomous, bits and pieces of it flickering into or out of existence cannot be noticed when the atom is mixed in with billions of others. You could bring that forkful of food from plate to mouth just fine without realizing that the atomic components within are changing position in space, but not actually moving.

Admittedly the distinction is a fine one. An electron appearing at separate points in space is not the same as the electron actually moving through the space, and the interpretation fits QM experimental evidence.

Of course, if this is the case, one would want to know more about the mechanisms involved, as you no doubt investigated the projector mechanisms. Then there is the philosophical matter of “reason.” Why would the universe be constructed in a discontinuous manner?

It was the reason behind motion-replication mechanisms that led me to these notions. Why are movies projected a frame at a time? It is the only way that works. I propose that the same is true at the core level of reality. God did it that way because He could not create stable energy forms that actually moved.

I have to run and will complete this later if you’re interested.

 

[JDaniel]

JD,
Thanks for the come back. I apologize for my use of “ridicule,” which was inappropriate, and which poorly serves a relationship which has had some gnarly moments before settling in to something more interesting. “Blown off” would have been a more accurate and non pejorative choice.

Greylorn:

I’ll accept that it appeared to be a “blow off,” but, really I did not intend it to be.

Of course the arguments I’ve proposed can be dismissed, but you might find them worth more serious consideration. They represent two or three pieces of the puzzle I’ve been trying to assemble, a comprehensive theory of everything which includes God and consciousness.

Though I’m not the “wifey” type, even S.T. Coleridge had his moments with his (wifey). Occasionally, she had to bring him back to down to earth, as I recall.

Lucky that the movie/projector analysis connected with your experience. I intended it as an analogy, something to demonstrate that the appearance of motion does not imply the actual existence of motion.

I realized that, but, also wished to demonstrate myself that there is motion and there is fiction.

Of course, there are events. Specifically, the universe seems to be constructed from an aggregate of extremely small components (atoms) which are assembled into the larger components we see moving around. There are cause and effect relationships between all of these, which determine the sequence of events. And that, a sequence of events which could be static, is enough to describe the mechanics of both atoms and galaxies.

Very true.

We use time because it is convenient, but time is not essential to change.

Of course. Change occurs. It may occur sequentially and (at least “almost”) simultaneously. St. Thomas gave an example in one of his essays, but, I can’t remember what it was. I’ll think about it and bring it up at some later time - when you least expect it!

Only change is position is essential.

I disagree with this. To me what is essential to motion, per se, is the moving, the process: the potential as potential in actuality, or rather, in being. The change of position is, I concede more essential to the entire act and, perhaps, its intent.

I propose that electrons do not actually orbit an atomic nucleus. They appear in discrete points within spaces we call shells. Then they disappear, and reappear elsewhere, like movie frames.

I do not disagree. I view electron shells as any place an electron could be without specificity.

Because each atom is autonomous, bits and pieces of it flickering into or out of existence cannot be noticed when the atom is mixed in with billions of others. You could bring that forkful of food from plate to mouth just fine without realizing that the atomic components within are changing position in space, but not actually moving.

On the other hand, as it is moving to my mouth, it is probably cooling. If it is cooling it is itself changing at the same time that the atomic components are changing position in space. Two motions, one integral, and one trivial.

Of course, if this is the case, one would want to know more about the mechanisms involved, as you no doubt investigated the projector mechanisms. Then there is the philosophical matter of “reason.” Why would the universe be constructed in a discontinuous manner?

I’m not so sure I want the answer to that!

It was the reason behind motion-replication mechanisms that led me to these notions. Why are movies projected a frame at a time? It is the only way that works. I propose that the same is true at the core level of reality. God did it that way because He could not create stable energy forms that actually moved.

Or, because He believed we would accept a fiction easier than a more substantial view of reality. I remember that as a kid I used to build train tracks with electric trains, and skyscrapers with erector sets. What was fascinating was the control I had over the end process, which is precisely why I built those things as quickly as I possibly could. I wanted to control them. It was great because they are made in such a way as to have autonomy while at the same time allowing for kid-control. I could make the train crash and I could topple a skyscraper. Then, I could rebuild the skyscraper and re-right the train and whatever it knocked down. Almost a sort of tiny-god!

I have to run and will complete this later if you’re interested.

Absolutely, I’m interested, so please do. I’ll consider your points some more, in the mean time.

God bless you Greylorn,
jd

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Apparently some need a course or two in Physics. Time does not exist apart from space. Spacetime is a unified entity. See A. Einstein ; "The Theory of General Relativity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

 

[GEddie]

Apparently some need a course or two in Physics. Time does not exist apart from space. Spacetime is a unified entity. See A. Einstein ; "The Theory of General Relativity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Our perception of “forward” time, however, may be driven by entropy.