Dilemma of time and the act of creation

[lmelahn]

So you only have beginning, present, and future? What did exist at the beginning?

Remember, God is not changed by His creation in any way whatsoever.

God is “before” creation, in the sense that creation depends radically on Him. However, He is not necessarily “before” creation in time—since He is entirely outside of time. (He has to be outside of time, precisely because He is utterly immutable.)

 

[lmelahn]

Time is not space that something could exist outside of it.

If the thing does not change, by that very fact, it is outside of time.

 

[STT]

Based on some theories. There are many theories regarding time, even some that it doesn’t exist at all or is a false dimension. A few more interesting perspectives:

Did Time Exist Before the Big Bang?

Does Time Exist, or Is It Merely the Numerical Order of Change?

The nature of time, what it is, where it is, and how it exists is far from a resolved issue.

Lets criticize this statement from Did Time Exist Before the Big Bang?: “As per Hermann Minkowski (and later, Einstein), there isn’t time AND space, as if they are two separate quantities, instead there is just space-time, with both being one cohesive unit.”

Could you imagine a mind which experience a blink only? Yes. So the concept of space-time is not fundamental. This although could be applicable to our universe. I don’t really have time to go through both of them unless you mention a “quote” which is in favor of your thinking.

 

[STT]

If the thing does not change, by that very fact, it is outside of time.

An apple on a table also is in the same category given your definition of outside of time.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Lets criticize this statement from Did Time Exist Before the Big Bang?: “As per Hermann Minkowski (and later, Einstein), there isn’t time AND space, as if they are two separate quantities, instead there is just space-time, with both being one cohesive unit.”

Could you imagine a mind which experience a blink only? Yes. So the concept of space-time is not fundamental. This although could be applicable to our universe. I don’t really have time to go through both of them unless you mention a “quote” which is in favor of your thinking.

My point is that it is all theory. We have no absolute understanding of time.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

An apple on a table also is in the same category given your definition of outside of time.

An apple on a table is undergoing decay. It is also moving through the universe. It’s size and shape are also being determined by the gravitational and atmospheric forces upon it at any given point. It is far from unchanging.

 

[Wesrock]

That is your model. You believe in creation. You also agree that there was “no thing” before the beginning. So lets see what is your model given these two facts.

I’ve no idea what you’re asking for, though.

 

[STT]

“Nothing,” strictly speaking,*is not a state of creation—it is nothing.

Also, creation is not a process; it is a single act.

These I know.

Thus, the created universe depends radically its Creator, but that dependence on Him is not necessarily temporal. As I mentioned, there is nothing prevent God from creating a universe that has lasted an infinitely long time.

Do you believe that any act requires two steps which one follows another?

 

[Wesrock]

If the thing does not change, by that very fact, it is outside of time.

And for clarification, by “outside”, we don’t mean that time is some type of box or spatial dimension to stand inside or outside of. It just means that something is not subject to change, in knowledge or experiences or in any way. It is not subject to time, or affected by time, or experiencing time.

 

[lmelahn]

Time is elementary.Therefore it is not within something. Any physical theory needs time in order to show that the theory is successful in predicting future. We then deduce that the theory is correct. Therefore a physical theory which claims time as a emergent entity does not exist.

OK, now I see where you are going with this.

It is important to keep in mind that the “time”*that is used by physicists, as if it were a quantity, like distance, is only a mathematical model that fits because, for us, time “flows” in what seems like a continuous motion.

(In reality, quantum theory puts that in crisis, but more about that later.)

Time is like mass: physics provides no way of saying what it “is”; it is just a parameter that must be made to fit the model.

However, with Aristotelian philosophy, I think we can do better. Aristotle basically identifies time with change (or, as it is sometimes said “movement”—although this includes all kinds of changes, not just changes in position). As a sort of working definition, he calls time the “measure of change according to a before and after.”

I think that definition works well, especially when we consider how we measure time. If you think about it, the universe does not have a built-in digital clock that we can take readings of. Rather, we have to take existing realities that act in a (more or less) uniform manner, with which we can compare the progress of other processes.

For instance, before there were clocks, we would measure the time of day according to the position of the sun in the sky; the months according to the rising and setting of the sun and the position of the moon; the seasons according to the position of the sun and the cyclical changes of temperature and weather. Nowadays, we really have not fundamentally changed our way of measuring time; we just have instruments that produce a much more regular undulations: mechanical clocks, digital clocks, atomic clocks, and so forth.

We don’t have to invent for ourselves a pre-existing “entity”*that is prior to all of the changes we measure; it is sufficient for our measurements to match up in a predictable way with the regular undulations of our instruments.

That is why changeless entities—which is basically only God—do not experience time in any way. However, by creating the physical universe in such a way that it basically is in a state of constant flux, God in that very act creates time.

(Quantum mechanics suggests that what appears continuous on a “macro”*level is, in the “micro”*level, in fact, a series of transitions between a very large but finite number of discrete states. That does not fundamentally challenge the basic notion: time is simply the measure of the changes that things undergo.)

 

[STT]

Remember, God is not changed by His creation in any way whatsoever.

God is “before” creation, in the sense that creation depends radically on Him. However, He is not necessarily “before” creation in time—since He is entirely outside of time. (He has to be outside of time, precisely because He is utterly immutable.)

I don’t understand your model. God is before creation at the same time God is outside of time.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

And for clarification, by “outside”, we don’t mean that time is some type of box or spatial dimension to stand inside or outside of. It just means that it is not subject to change, in knowledge or experiences or in any way. It is not subject to time, or affected by time, or experiencing time.

Exactly. In a simplified way, “time” is just the calculation or measurement of observable change.

God is unchanging and therefore is not subject to time or observation. God simply IS.

 

[STT]

My point is that it is all theory. We have no absolute understanding of time.

Yes, but my point is not a theory. It is a common sense law given the definition of physical theory.

 

[lmelahn]

These I know.

Do you believe that any act requires two steps which one follows another?

In creatures, the answer is a qualified “yes.” However, the succession might not be temporal. At a minimum, you have the substance that is acting, and its operation. That is a sort of “prior” and “posterior.” However, they are not temporally separated; they are simultaneous.

Strictly speaking, a clear “before” and “after” exists only in the material world.

It should be said that God’s operation is unique and utterly identical with Himself, so, although it is real action, there is no “before” or “after” of any kind. (That is another way of saying that God is not affected by His actions towards His creatures.)

 

[lmelahn]

I don’t understand your model. God is before creation at the same time God is outside of time.

Forget “before,” then. The important thing is that His creatures depend on Him absolutely for their very existence. The gift of being, in the absolute sense, is precisely what “creation” consists in.

(Note that “before” and “after,” even in normal parlance, has meanings other than in time. There is logical priority, and there is priority in space—e.g., page 1 comes before page 2.)

 

[STT]

I’ve no idea what you’re asking for, though.

You believe on these principles: (1) The act of creation and (2) You also agree that there was “no thing” before the beginning. I am wondering how you can embed the act of creation in this model (explained by 2). One can argue that (2) is all that is.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Yes, but my point is not a theory. It is a common sense law given the definition of physical theory.

My friend, you are trying to wrap a 6 inch string around a 60 inch ball. No matter how many times you walk around it stretching it as far as you can, it just can’t wrap around it.

As creations, we cannot possibly grasp what is outside of our created universe. Our 6 inch minds can’t wrap around it’s infinite circumference. Just like the dog in the library or the ocean in a tiny hole on the beach analogies I gave you in one of the other threads.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

You believe on these principles: (1) The act of creation and (2) You also agree that there was “no thing” before the beginning. I am wondering how you can embed the act of creation in this model (explained by 2). One can argue that (2) is all that is.

Creation is not necessarily an act, but rather is a byproduct of God’s eternal and unchanging will. God did not “change” and “then” commit an “act” of creation. Creation is a concept we use to describe the observable universe which is willed by and exists within the will of God.

 

[STT]

And for clarification, by “outside”, we don’t mean that time is some type of box or spatial dimension to stand inside or outside of. It just means that something is not subject to change, in knowledge or experiences or in any way. It is not subject to time, or affected by time, or experiencing time.

Does God experience something? How could He have internal knowledge of everything if everything is not present to Him, in another world He is conscious of everything? This is a static picture and I don’t have any problem with it. The problem however appears when you assign the act of creation to such a God since any act is temporal (cause and effect).

 

[lmelahn]

Creation is not necessarily an act, but rather is a byproduct of God’s eternal and unchanging will. God did not “change” and “then” commit an “act” of creation. Creation is a concept we use to describe the observable universe which is willed by and exists within the will of God.

I am not sure I am comfortable with calling it a “byproduct”*of God’s will. I don’t think this is what you meant, but it makes it sound like Neoplatonic concept of procession—as if God cannot help but create.

I prefer to call it God’s transitive operation: what he does with regard to those entities that are outside of Himself. From His perspective, it is a single, unique Act that corresponds entirely with Himself. The effect of that act is the multitude of beings that we know as creation.