God in timelss state cannot know what is the current time

[Bahman]

But if X is gone, then Y is not ‘change’, it just is. If you want to point to Y and say “it’s a change from X”, then you likewise need a W to which you can point and say “X is a change from W” (even if W is ‘the void’ in an act of true creation).

You may choose to ignore W, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist as a state…

Changes on the spot is related to what is on spot. In all filed of physics we define changes as what is available on spot. For example look at the second law of mechanics, namely changes in location is related to force and mass each is related to what is available on spot.

I think that this notion of ‘delay’ is problematic. In any sequence, there would be a ‘delay’, whether infinitesimal or of great duration. Consecutive Super Bowls happen every year; consecutive Olympics happen after many years.

The delay is zero as the sequence is continuous. We however cannot absorb the sequence but some snap shots of it then interpolate between snap shots.

Why is that? To a being outside of time, all moments of time exist in the ‘now’. Why couldn’t such a being, who experiences all moments of our existence without mediation, be unable to perceive the temporal relationships therein?

Because God experience all frames at one point and to differentiate frame from frame it needs to go to state of meta-time since that require changes in state of knowledge.

No – because if you posit God as existing in two ‘states’, then you are saying that God is mutable. Since, by definition, God is immutable, there’s only one state: ‘God’. That state does not change; there is no distinction between them, so there is no need of a ‘meta-time’ to differentiate …

I am not saying that, I am saying that one needs to embed God in two different states, assuming that both God are same, in order to accept that God cause creation and that require the concept of meta-time since two states are involved, namely God and God+creation. This leads to infinite regression since God needs to create meta-time state first.

 

[Bahman]

Do you really live in Plato’s cave?
Linus2nd

Nah, I am trying to release you from the cave . By the way, don’t you agree that we experience Mind?

 

[Bahman]

And that is the flaw within your logic.
You limit God to what you can imagine.
God is not bound by that limitation.

We all do that, basically trying to fit God using our imagination with what is available in our faith. Faith is nonsense without logic.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nah, I am trying to release you from the cave . By the way, don’t you agree that we experience Mind?

I know I have a Mind, but we certainly disagree on what that means. We think, will, and know what exists outside the mind as an objective reality. But we have been all through that.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I know I have a Mind, but we certainly disagree on what that means. We think, will, and know what exists outside the mind as an objective reality. But we have been all through that.

Linus2nd

I can’t let you go that easy. What we have is mind with small “m”, Mind is what we experience through its states. The only objective reality different from our minds is Mind which give rises to forms which are subjective reality since they are just a sole state.

 

[ffg]

Interesting conversation.

‘God cannot know…’

“God”, the surest bet for ‘know-it-all’.

 

[Gorgias]

Changes on the spot is related to what is on spot. In all filed of physics we define changes as what is available on spot. For example look at the second law of mechanics, namely changes in location is related to force and mass each is related to what is available on spot.

I’m not exactly certain what you’re attempting to say here; in particular, “what is available on spot” doesn’t seem particularly clear. You seem to be positing that change is discernible without reference to a prior influence; that doesn’t make sense. Even if we’re looking at a body upon which a certain force is applied, we’re implicitly considering the prior state, in which force was not applied to the object. In other words, if we explain acceleration in terms of force and mass, we’re implicitly talking about a ‘before’ even in which that force was applied. Ergo, we’re talking about the change from, not just the change to.

The delay is zero as the sequence is continuous. We however cannot absorb the sequence but some snap shots of it then interpolate between snap shots.

So, we’re talking about a sequence of events, E, that occurs over a series of times, t[sub]1[/sub]…t[sub]n[/sub]. The interval of time between E[sub]i[/sub] and E[sub]i+1[/sub] is some value e. (In other words, if E[sub]i[/sub] happens at time t[sub]i[/sub], then E[sub]i+1[/sub] happens at time t[sub]i[/sub]+e. (For the sake of argument, let’s assume that e is identical beween each elements in the sequence – after all, if they weren’t, then some would have to be greater than others, and zero cannot be greater than zero, so some would have to be non-zero, and thus, would disprove your argument. )

But, as e approaches zero, then the time of state E[sub]i+1[/sub] approaches t[sub]i[/sub]+0; that is, states E[sub]i[/sub] and E[sub]i+1[/sub] converge and become a single state. In other words, if you want to say that e=0, then you’re saying that there’s no change from one state to another. This cannot be, since you’re trying to assert that there’s an actual change; therefore, the two events cannot be simultaneous.

Can we save your assertion that there’s change, then? Yes: if e is a very small value, such that we perceive it as if there’s no delay, then we have a situation in which we cannot detect the passage of time from one state to another, and yet, there is a minuscule change in time. However, in allowing for this, we’re explicitly saying that e>0. So, you can either assert that there’s no difference in time, in which case you cannot claim that ‘change’ exists; or you can assert that there’s change, in which case you cannot claim that no difference in time exists. You can’t have both. So… which is it? ‘Change in state’, or ‘change in time’?

Because God experience all frames at one point and to differentiate frame from frame it needs to go to state of meta-time since that require changes in state of knowledge.

That doesn’t follow. God’s “state of knowledge” is full and immediate knowledge of all states, simultaneously. Perhaps you, as a being inside the construct of time, require temporal differentiation in order to discern differences in frames, but God – who is outside of the construct of time – does not. No ‘meta-time’ is necessary.

I am not saying that, I am saying that one needs to embed God in two different states, assuming that both God are same, in order to accept that God cause creation and that require the concept of meta-time since two states are involved, namely God and God+creation. This leads to infinite regression since God needs to create meta-time state first.

Again, you’re relying on the assertion that God has two states. If God has two states, then this implies that God changes. That’s a logical contradiction: for God to be God, he must be immutable. In other words, there’s no change in God between ‘God’ and ‘God+creation’. Therefore, there’s no infinite regress. Perhaps we, as humans, cannot discern between these, but that does not imply that our limitations project themselves upon God.