Dilemma of time and the act of creation

[STT]

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.)

Think of block universe (what God sees) for a second. There could be no motion in this universe unless something, time or our perspective, changes.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

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.

Instead of byproduct, perhaps it is better to phrase it as: Creation is the observable and experienced manifestation of God’s will. It is not that God cannot help but to create, but rather that creation cannot help but exist because God wills it.

 

[lmelahn]

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).

God does not really have “experience” in the same sense we do. Instead, He has something much better.

We know by allowing experiences to affect our intellects. God knows by being utterly simple, and this having direct and comprehensive access to His very own infinite Essence.

He is omniscient, because His Essence is the model or exemplar of all of His creatures. Thus, He knows immediately, by contemplating His own Essence, everything that is occurring in creation, in an eternal present.

You can call God’s manner of being “static” if you want, but it is not static the way a rock is static, but the way a fire is “static”: that is, the fire’s temperature does not change (yes, it does a little, but work with me here—it is only an analogy), not because it is lacking in heat, but because it is the source of the heat.

 

[STT]

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.)

Do you believe that universe did not exist and then created? That is the very act of creation which has two steps, one follows another. This means that you need time to allows this to happen. Time however is an element of creation so we are dealing with a dilemma.

 

[STT]

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.

What is your problem with the law?

 

[STT]

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.

How do you define the act of creation?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Do you believe that universe did not exist and then created? That is the very act of creation which has two steps, one follows another. This means that you need time to allows this to happen. Time however is an element of creation so we are dealing with a dilemma.

I believe that our ability to observe and measure change within the universe ceases to exist when we aim our gaze towards it’s origin.

 

[STT]

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.

I don’t think that God has an inside and sees outside. One needs to assign a body to God to think so.

 

[lmelahn]

Do you believe that universe did not exist and then created? That is the very act of creation which has two steps, one follows another. This means that you need time to allows this to happen. Time however is an element of creation so we are dealing with a dilemma.

Not necessarily. That is my point. At least as a theoretical possibility, it could have always existed.

(That would not make it “eternal”*in the strict sense, because it would still depend radically on God for its very existence.)

 

[lmelahn]

I don’t think that God has an inside and sees outside. One needs to assign a body to God to think so.

It is not a question of seeing inside or outside, it is a question of the effect of the action.

The internal processions of the Godhead (immanent operation) are a very different effect from the creation of the universe (transitive operation).

In God, it is all the very same act, of course, but we come to know about it though its various effects.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

What is your problem with the law?

You have yet to present a law based on anything other than what you have deemed common sense within your own mind. If the entire scientific community up until this point has failed to fully explain time, then I hardly can see it as being common sense.

How do you define the act of creation?

I don’t define it as an act in the sense that a change was made, but rather as a resultant observable and experiential existence of the unchanging will of God.

 

[STT]

God does not really have “experience” in the same sense we do. Instead, He has something much better.

We know by allowing experiences to affect our intellects. God knows by being utterly simple, and this having direct and comprehensive access to His very own infinite Essence.

He is omniscient, because His Essence is the model or exemplar of all of His creatures. Thus, He knows immediately, by contemplating His own Essence, everything that is occurring in creation, in an eternal present.

You can call God’s manner of being “static” if you want, but it is not static the way a rock is static, but the way a fire is “static”: that is, the fire’s temperature does not change (yes, it does a little, but work with me here—it is only an analogy), not because it is lacking in heat, but because it is the source of the heat.

Do you believe in cause and effect? There are two things one following another.

 

[STT]

You have yet to present a law based on anything other than what you have deemed common sense within your own mind. If the entire scientific community up until this point has failed to fully explain time, then I hardly can see it as being common sense.

I cannot really help this.

I don’t define it as an act in the sense that a change was made, but rather as a resultant observable and experiential existence of the unchanging will of God.

What God did if nothing has changed?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

What God did if nothing has changed?

Creation’s experience changes, the Creator does not.

 

[STT]

Creation’s experience changes, the Creator does not.

What do you mean with Creation’s experience? Moreover, we have a change whatever Creation’s experience is.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

What do you mean with Creation’s experience?

Us, animals, plants, the planet, the solar system, galaxies, the universe… that which exists because God wills it to.

 

[STT]

Us, animals, plants, the planet, the solar system, galaxies, the universe… that which exists because God wills it to.

We are talking about the act of creation.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

We are talking about the act of creation.

Which is predicate upon what creation is, which includes “time”, and the definition of act. I have already made clear that to consider creation an act in the sense that God had to change is false. God exists in eternity, so there was not a point in “time” that God decided to commit an act of creation.

God simply IS. God’s unchanging will simply IS. And our creation is not an act of observable change (which would be subject to “time”) from God and eternity, but rather a resultant observable and experiential existence of all things, including the ability to measure the relative change that is experienced, which we seek to define and understand as time.

 

[STT]

Which is predicate upon what creation is, which includes “time”, and the definition of act. I have already made clear that to consider creation an act in the sense that God had to change is false. God exists in eternity, so there was not a point in “time” that God decided to commit an act of creation.

God simply IS. God’s unchanging will simply IS. And our creation is not an act of observable change (which would be subject to “time”) from God and eternity, but rather a resultant observable and experiential existence of all things, including the ability to measure the relative change that is experienced, which we seek to define and understand as time.

I don’t understand why you are switching to God. All I am asking is to let focus on act of creation. The act of creation is an act. It is a cause and an effect. Effect always follows cause. Therefore we have a change on something when there is no time (no changes is allowed).

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I don’t understand why you are switching to God. All I am asking is to let focus on act of creation. The act of creation is an act. It is a cause an effect. Effect always follows cause. Therefore we have a change on something when there is no time (no changes is allowed).

Because to even try and begin to understand this “dilemma” (how time could possibly be a part of creation when the “act of creation” itself requires time), the causation and effect need to be defined.

God’s will is the cause, creation is the effect. The effect of creation follows the cause of God’s will.

God’s will is unchanging, therefore there is no change, and therefore there is no time outside of creation.

I bring up God because this is not a physics forum, but a Philosophy forum on a Catholic Apologetics forum

As Catholics, our explanation for anything ultimately leads back to God, who has decided to leave several things a mystery to us. The concepts of eternity, time, creation, and an uncreated Creator are all in the realm of mystery, and we as an internet community will never be able to fully explain, prove, or disprove these concepts.