Eternity and Perception of Time

[Anthony_A]

I have been thinking a lot about the concept of eternity as I don’t have a firm grasp of it. I take eternity to be a “timeless realm” (whatever that means) in which a person perceives some sort of presentness of God.

Now, aside from directly perceiving God, how exactly does eternity differ from what we perceive in this mortal life? I can’t honestly say that I perceive anything other than the present. I can remember past events, but won’t I be to do much the same in an eternal setting? Perhaps someone should say that there will be no change in the eternal life, but again is this so different from our everyday experiences?

I ask because I take our perception as always observing the now and we notice change only in comparison to what a previous state of the world looked like. Granted, this happens almost instantaneously so we see a sort of fluid picture of change. But once we reach a state of existence where change no longer occurs (which I’m not even sure I really understand what that means), how would we be perceiving time any different than we do now?

Forgive my scattered thoughts as I don’t really have a worked out theory of eternity.

 

[Eucharisted]

Beatific Vision: newadvent.org/cathen/02364a.htm
Eternity: newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm

 

[Anthony_A]

thank you for the links.

in the last paragraph of the Eternity page, the author states that eternity does not imply “no succession” and that all changes are accidental. I’m guessing that the substantial change which has taken place is the resurrection, and once that happens all changes are accidental? Am I to understand the passage as concurring with my thought that our perception of time and perception of eternity would not be so different?

 

[reggieM]

I can’t honestly say that I perceive anything other than the present.

Actually, you really don’t experience the present as such. You can’t do or even think one thing in the present. It’s already gone while you’re doing it. The present is not something you can possess.

We use the phrase “time stood still”. That’s the joy of a moment – where it seems like there is a present. That’s God in eternity. Time is the measure of the movement of physical things. Without those physical things moving in a succession, there is nothing to measure – and thus no time.

 

[Anthony_A]

Right, I understand the fraction of a time that lapses in viewing and perceiving an object. I suppose I would have to that this is present enough. The aristotelian conception of time which you stated is the one conception I am familiar with. Outside of that, I have no experience in the philosophy of time other than I know Aristotle’s conception is not definitive.

 

[Dameedna]

I have been thinking a lot about the concept of eternity as I don’t have a firm grasp of it. I take eternity to be a “timeless realm” (whatever that means) in which a person perceives some sort of presentness of God.

Now, aside from directly perceiving God, how exactly does eternity differ from what we perceive in this mortal life? I can’t honestly say that I perceive anything other than the present. I can remember past events, but won’t I be to do much the same in an eternal setting? Perhaps someone should say that there will be no change in the eternal life, but again is this so different from our everyday experiences?

I ask because I take our perception as always observing the now and we notice change only in comparison to what a previous state of the world looked like. Granted, this happens almost instantaneously so we see a sort of fluid picture of change. But once we reach a state of existence where change no longer occurs (which I’m not even sure I really understand what that means), how would we be perceiving time any different than we do now?

Forgive my scattered thoughts as I don’t really have a worked out theory of eternity.

Eternity is beyond human comprehension.

The only choice you need to make when it comes to the infinite, is what you believe it entails…IF is a state of your mind finite, infite, or is there a form of time and flow that could exist outside your world frame?

We, finite humans…were never meant to understand infiity. If we were meant to understand it…, we already would.

 

[JDaniel]

thank you for the links.

in the last paragraph of the Eternity page, the author states that eternity does not imply “no succession” and that all changes are accidental. I’m guessing that the substantial change which has taken place is the resurrection, and once that happens all changes are accidental? Am I to understand the passage as concurring with my thought that our perception of time and perception of eternity would not be so different?

Not quite. Remember, when the author begins this part of the explanation, he qualifies it by saying that this concept is different from the concept of eternity where God is concerned. Therefore, it is an improper conception of eternity, in that sense, however, it might help us to understand what we mean when we speak of the “eternity of our souls.” We underwent substantial change when each of us came into being. Upon our deaths our eternity will be the inability of our souls to undergo substantial change again for ever.

Also, there is another type of concept of eternity and that is eternity with reference to our duration in Heaven or in Hell. In this sense, eternity will be a succession, but of accidental changes. These cannot be experienced as an infinite Now, as God experiences eternity, but, instead, they are to be experienced as a durational succession of accidental “events”, in the widest sense of that word, so that we understand that we, as souls, are in fact undergoing some sort of lengthy flow of whatever experience we are sent to. And, that this flow will continue always.

jd

 

[Anthony_A]

Not quite.

I’m not sure how the explanation that you posted conflicts with what I said. Another question to anyone: Do we experience substantial change in the world (aside from the Eucharist)? I’m just not sure what it means that my soul won’t undergo substantial change in heaven. Does this imply that my soul goes through substantial change now (other than birth which I’m not even quite sure that a substantial changed happened at birth- organism and soul were created and went on their way to become me but nothing substantial changed)?

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not sure how the explanation that you posted conflicts with what I said. Another question to anyone: Do we experience substantial change in the world (aside from the Eucharist)? I’m just not sure what it means that my soul won’t undergo substantial change in heaven. Does this imply that my soul goes through substantial change now (other than birth which I’m not even quite sure that a substantial changed happened at birth- organism and soul were created and went on their way to become me but nothing substantial changed)?

Substantial change is defined by events that are changes in substance. For example, if you burn a piece of wood until it becomes ash. The wood is gone. And, prior to the burning, ash was not present. That is substantial change. “Passing out of being” is substantial change.

Also, your parents supplied two gametes. Very different cells from the zygote that will form upon conception. After conception, the gametes are gone. Before conception, the zygote was not present. That is substantial change. “Coming to be” is substantial change.

A green apple, hanging on the branch of an apple tree, turns red. Before it ripened, it was green and no red was present. Upon achieving ripeness, it is red, and the green is gone. However, it is the same apple, the same substance. That is accidental change. Change that does not include coming to be or passing away, is accidental change.

Another example of accidental change is that of my arm moving across the front of my body from left to right. That is accidental change.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not sure how the explanation that you posted conflicts with what I said. Another question to anyone: Do we experience substantial change in the world (aside from the Eucharist)? I’m just not sure what it means that my soul won’t undergo substantial change in heaven. Does this imply that my soul goes through substantial change now (other than birth which I’m not even quite sure that a substantial changed happened at birth- organism and soul were created and went on their way to become me but nothing substantial changed)?

Once we are in “being”, WE do not undergo substantial change until our deaths. Upon the formation of us, our souls became “eternal”, but, not eternal in the same sense that God is Eternal. Our souls cannot pass out of being, out of existence, in other words. No other substantial change takes place to us except that our spirits will become separated from our bodies.

Upon death, our spirits are separated from our bodies. At a later time, the Second Coming, our spirits will be re-united with our bodies. We will become souls once again. From this point on, we are eternal, but in terms of accidental succession and being. We will experience moment by moment our happiness, as the writer says, of the continuous presence of God before us.

jd

 

[Anthony_A]

Okay, I’m on board with all of that, but it still seems that our perception of time would be the same. I don’t know if you are arguing for, against, or beside that point. If we don’t experience or witness any substantial change in this finite life, and then in the eternal life there won’t even be substantial change for us to witness, what is different?

 

[Drawmack]

Okay, I’m on board with all of that, but it still seems that our perception of time would be the same. I don’t know if you are arguing for, against, or beside that point. If we don’t experience or witness any substantial change in this finite life, and then in the eternal life there won’t even be substantial change for us to witness, what is different?

I know this isn’t official teaching in any way and is probably a very simplistic way to look at it. But, I’ve always though of eternity as something along the lines of how the main character for Slaughter House 5 experiences life.

 

[Anthony_A]

Drawmack,

I haven’t read that novel. Can you describe how the character experiences time?

 

[JDaniel]

Okay, I’m on board with all of that, but it still seems that our perception of time would be the same. I don’t know if you are arguing for, against, or beside that point. If we don’t experience or witness any substantial change in this finite life, and then in the eternal life there won’t even be substantial change for us to witness, what is different?

But, we do witness substantial change in our lives. We witness the substantial change of others coming to be. We witness the substantial change of others passing away. We witness the wood becoming ash when subjected to fire. We witness an acorn becoming an oak tree. And, many others.

jd

 

[Anthony_A]

good point with the coming in/out of life. The absence of death would be a nice substantial change to not witness, but birth? I always thought that was really joyous, but at the same time I wouldn’t have a reason to mourn the absence of birth. The other substantial changes seem trivial. I wouldn’t much be impressed with eternity if that was a big “selling point” (to be clear, no death is more than enough to sell me)

 

[Drawmack]

Drawmack,

I haven’t read that novel. Can you describe how the character experiences time?

In Slaughter House 5 the main character becomes “unstuck in time”. Basically, he can (almost at will) visit any day in his life at any point. So, his life (to him) is not a linear experience, but a series of events that simply happened. He, in a way, is immortal because he just visits different points in his life as he desires. He, in a way, is unbound by time because be can jump from day to day within his life instead of living them in order.

 

[Detales]

Ah, the good old days. I used to work with Kurt Vonnegut’s cousin, read his works and tres beaucoup other sci fi authors. I don’t know if relative to Slaughter House 5 if anyone remenbers the TV producton where Stony Stevenson wins a trip off a cereal box to the “Chronosynclastic Infundibulum.”

Even though it is a fictional work and Stoney gets knocked off his peronal time track, that is yet through an alternate time dimention. An interesting and readable treasties on time and our experience of it may be found in John Dunne’s An Experiment With Time. Other writings on time are available by Steven Hawking and others

As to Eternity or Eternality, it has no dimension of duration. It is one of the Big Three fundamentaly erroneous interpretations attached partiuclarly to christianist religons. Mixing the Timeless Nature of God with something completely in another dimension is at the root of the highly developed misinterpretation of God having certain kinds of agency. To say that God does or does not do X is equally worng from the standpoint of eternality.

Tha nature of Etrnality is best described in lay terms in an appendix in a book by Harry Benjamin called Basic Self Knowledge. It would behoove any student of faith to obtain a copy and read it thoroughly.

 

[Drawmack]

Ah, the good old days. I used to work with Kurt Vonnegut’s cousin, read his works and tres beaucoup other sci fi authors. I don’t know if relative to Slaughter House 5 if anyone remenbers the TV producton where Stony Stevenson wins a trip off a cereal box to the “Chronosynclastic Infundibulum.”

Bernard O’Hara gave me a copy of the book shortly before he died. (The man it was dedicated to). Bernie claimed that Kurt dedicated it to him because their experiments with absynth had led to the concept of becoming unstuck in time. To make this amusing realize that Mr. O’Hara was a highly accomplish 70 something attorney when I knew him. Kurt is good, but he’s not my favorite sci-fi author. I’m still preferential to the originals in this genre.

Even though it is a fictional work and Stoney gets knocked off his peronal time track, that is yet through an alternate time dimention. An interesting and readable treasties on time and our experience of it may be found in John Dunne’s An Experiment With Time. Other writings on time are available by Steven Hawking and others

As to Eternity or Eternality, it has no dimension of duration. It is one of the Big Three fundamentaly erroneous interpretations attached partiuclarly to christianist religons. Mixing the Timeless Nature of God with something completely in another dimension is at the root of the highly developed misinterpretation of God having certain kinds of agency. To say that God does or does not do X is equally worng from the standpoint of eternality.

Tha nature of Etrnality is best described in lay terms in an appendix in a book by Harry Benjamin called Basic Self Knowledge. It would behoove any student of faith to obtain a copy and read it thoroughly.

Interestingly, I haven’t read any of those. Could you give us a little synopsis of Basic Self Knowledge please?

 

[Detales]

How cool is that, to have received such a rare copy that way! I enjoyed Vonnegut, but my most fascinating encounters were with the social and cultural ideas of Heinlein and Asimov, as well as the astonishingly delightful imagination fo Ray Bradbury.

I will give you my personal synopsis of BSK, if you wish, by PM, but with the caveat that you may not like it, despite its ultimate utility in the question of the thread. That is not even to bring in its practical applicaitons in understanding spirituality, a word I don’t care for, really, but which serves.

In the mean time, so as not to cause uneccesary turbulence, I will refer you to amazon.com/Basic-Self-Knowledge-Harry-Benjamin/dp/0877281629# where you may read the prefatory material by clicking on the picture of the cover. If you are not simply a habitually pious Catholic, you may find it completly intruiging. Or not. Just remember as you are reading there, Mark 4:33,34.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[tonyrey]

I But once we reach a state of existence where change no longer occurs (which I’m not even sure I really understand what that means), how would we be perceiving time any different than we do now?

To believe change no longer occurs is to believe eternal existence is static but surely the Creator is dynamic. His **nature **does not change because He is the Source of existence. It is misleading to think that He “exists” because He does not “exist” in the same way as everything else. It is tempting to state that God **is **existence but human terms and categories are inadequate to describe God.
Although God’s nature does not change He causes change. Again it is a mistake to regard God’s causality as similar to any other form of causality. To create ex nihilo is the unique power of the Creator.
Even when we are in heaven we shall not exist in the same way that God exists. We continue being created whereas He continues to create. To dissociate change from God is to deny His creativity!
To put it in a nutshell, we cannot understand eternal existence because it is beyond our experience. All we know and need to know is that the infinite value of our existence is explained only by infinite Love…which is beyond time and space…