O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Thanks For The Book Recommendation. I Will Look It Up.
- Status
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
Willkommen!Thanks For The Book Recommendation. I Will Look It Up.
G
greylorn
Guest
All the premises involved in this paradox are faulty, as is the customary case with paradoxes. Paradoxes are useful in that they invite an examination of the premises.
This particular paradox begins with the premise that time exists, but does not define what it means by time. Its author might read, The Twin Dimensions – Inventing Time and Space, by Geza Szamosi, or study Descartes, who got the idea of treating time as a real, definable thing, eventually devising the well-known Cartesian coordinate system, a method for creating a relationship (e.g. velocity) between two entirely different kinds of things (space and time).
Newton and Leibnitz took the process one step further by inventing calculus, learning how to mathematically average variable velocities. This, and its many applications in the area of physics, lent credibility to the notion that time is something which has an independent existence. It does not. Time is simply a useful mathematical invention which allows us to average what is actually just a finely clocked sequence of events.
Look at creation in terms of events, not time. For example, let’s suppose that I’m building a nice backyard brick outhouse from a set of architectural plans. The job may be considered in two different ways— either in terms of the number of bricks I need to mortar in place, or the time required to do this. Of these two parameters, only one is fixed: the number of bricks. Moreover, the sequence of placement is partially fixed, in that I may lay the bricks clockwise or counterclockwise, but must place them in layers beginning at the bottom. The time involved is an absolute variable.
If I contract the job to a professional, he will determine his price based upon the number of bricks involved and his estimated placement time, which he will guess based upon his experience. If he is extremely good, his estimated time will equal the actual time involved.
You are the builder, the god of outhouse construction. If you need to get the job done quickly, you will assemble the components and get to work straightaway, finishing it in a day or two. But suppose that for you, the process is more important than the result, and so you decide to set exactly one brick per day. In terms of time, the job may take two years, but the sequence of brick placements remains the same.
What is important to realize is that the sequence of events, not time, is critical.
Events occurring within the universe also must occur in sequence. At the subatomic level, the events are discreet (quantized) and take place over tiny amounts of time which can only be measured in terms of the events themselves. If no events occur, time, the rate at which they occur, cannot be measured. Put another way, time is irrelevant in the absence of clocks.
There is another element to consider which can be appreciated only by those who have had thoughts. You will note, if you pay attention to the phenomenon, that thoughts occur instantaneously. By “thoughts” in this sense, I don’t mean information processing— rather, the occurrence of a concept in mind which had not previously existed.
For example, to write this my brain had to process lots of information, idea sorting, how best to word it, organizing, typing, etc. That all took time. But about 20 minutes ago I was writing a complex paragraph (since deleted) trying to explain time at the level of quantum mechanics, when I got an idea about the relationship between quantum events and time. That idea appeared immediately! Moreover, it appeared not in terms of words or images, but as a complete, abstract concept.
Knowing from experience that such ideas disappear quickly if left alone, I took a few minutes to put it into words. I even tried a few mathematical expressions. It will get thought about, evaluated, and perhaps used in a book. But the point is that it, like every other insight I or anyone else ever gets, appeared instantaneously.
Does that mean that it took no time? I do not know. I do know that it took none of the kind of time that we use to measure the passage of quantum events or the laying of bricks.
I believe that ideas of that sort come only from within that entity which you would call soul, which is the same kind of entity as that which people call God. I propose that neither you nor I understand squat about the nature of our core conscious, creative self— likewise for any Creator. Nor do we understand the real space in which we exist, which is independent of, yet interactive with, the space to which matter is confined.
Continued…
G
greylorn
Guest
To conclude the above, imaginative thought took place first as a sequence of concepts, built one upon another. When the thought came to build a universe, its components had to be assembled so as to work interactively and dynamically— like any machine. What proved important was the sequence at which events occur.
For example, an automobile engine can operate at various speeds, which we measure in terms of RPMs, or revolutions per minute. Within the engine, the same sequence of events occur for each rotation. Theoretically, the device is time independent, but sequence dependent.
(Practically, it cannot run at very low speeds because of thermodynamic constraints, and will destroy itself at very high speeds because of material limitations. But the design is essentially independent of time. It could be said that the engine creates its own time, as a function of the amount of energy it is fed.)
Engine speed is actually measured in terms of rate cycles per second.
Applying this idea of time to the universe— God could have designed atomic machinery to operate at a different clock rate, perhaps twice the current rate. The speed of light, which is a “rate,” would then be twice the current speed. Everything would be operate at a faster rate, but since the events must occur in the same sequence, we would not notice the difference. A good fastball pitcher would throw at 180 miles per hour, residential speeds would be 50mph, and your neurons would trigger twice as fast.
Your thoughts, however, would still come instantaneously, for they are not clocked. They are only dependent upon your previous thoughts.
Likewise for a functional creator, such as God.
As for the paradox, it is simply nonsense. That is because none of the key words— time and God, for example, are defined in terms of properties. They are only defined in terms of functions.
Consider, for example, the first definition:
God is defined as The Conscious First Cause.
That is like defining a motor as something which make a vehicle move. It’s worse, actually, because the word Conscious is not defined first. Its eventual definition,
Code:
*Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision. *
Code:
*Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision. *
*God is defined as The Conscious First Cause.*How did God acquire the property of consciousness?
A thorough analysis will show that the entire set of definitions is as inbred as the North Korean ruling family, and every bit as intelligent.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
Je concur.>RFGood analysis. Good show.
Nice Snark at the end, too.
- Status