God in timelss state cannot know what is the current time

[Bahman]

So you mean the universe is eternal and God was not created?

Yes, creation is eternal since otherwise it conflicts with God which is in timeless state.

They are already fused together. Matter, the entity that changes, cannot exist on its own, it needs to be brought into existence. So that everything about matter is intimately known by the one who creates matter. In fact, as matter couldn’t exist without this creator, matter itself on some level, on some fundamental level begins to appear not as just charges acting and interacting but on an even smaller and more fundamental level they meld into the desire of the creator.

A creation which cannot evolve on its own could not exist because, as we discussed God in state of timeless cannot perform the second action, so the act of sustaining creation by God is false.

 

[Bahman]

So less the planet Mars or the realm of Hades and more a state of non-existence?

There’s a wide gulf between a lack of experience and a lack of existence.

Objects and things exist but they cannot experience anything including their beings.

It’s almost as though you might say that God would have to observe (like, physically. With eyes and photoreceptors and the like) a thing in order to be aware of/experience it?

I hope I’ve misunderstood you. That’s silly.

Whether God could experience anything is subject of discussion. As it was mentioned before any act including experiencing is not allowed after performing creation for a God in state of timeless. Experiencing of course has its own constrain which means first you cannot be in timeless state second you need a body to translate objective reality to what your mind could comprehend.

Uh huh. So this attribute: why did it go away? Are you certain that it did? Where are there indications/revelations that it has gone away?

There is no revelation needed to comprehend this.

1. God was in state of timeless at time of creation and could only perform one act which was creation.
2. God after creation is either in state of timeless or in state of time. In first case it couldn’t perform any more action nor experience anything so it is dead, in second case it has to have a sort of body, not like us, to experience things otherwise it could only experience itself.

You seem very sure about what it must be like, even for a mind completely unlike yours.

It is matter of using your imagination and logical thinking properly. It is hard but it is possible.

And you know this…how?

From logical point of view it is very easy: Just one action is allowed in timeless state since the second action breaks the definition of timeless state.

To imagine it: You need to consider the fact that imagining yourself counts as one action, so your state of being is very complex, since as soon as you come with this idea that “I am” then you go to a state of time at which you could experience only yourself.

Could it? In the incarnation, absolutely; but it’s absurd to say that God only or must “experience” things as we finite creatures.

Whether God could experience us or not is subject of question. If God could exist in state of time after creation then it doesn’t need an incarnation to experience us, please read previous answer.

 

[JerryZ]

I love your post Jerry. In fact, if it isn’t too weird to say, I’ve been thinking about it all day sortof, since I’ve had a moreorless free day off work.
Philosophy never sleeps, if they say it, perhaps its true.
If a body traveling close to the speed of light ages less, then that would be a problem. But is it actually true. I think, but I may be wrong, that atomic clocks run slower traveling at speed, but is an atomic clock the same as a person. And if a person measures time by a spring wound clock would that spring wound clock slow down at speeds close to the speed of light, and why would it and how would it, if it were so.

Yes actually the aging process is slowed down. We know, that this is true because we can measure the slow down of the processes that govern the atoms, that are the basis of how we measure time to extraordinary precision.
Since we are all made of atoms that make up molecules and build what all matter is.
However for the person or persons traveling close to the speed of light they would not feel any different and would believe that time was running at “normal” rate.

–

 

[Bahman]

:whacky:

Please.

This is already explained. Because two actions one followed by another define a direction which is logically impossible in state of timeless since there is no before and after in this state.

Why do you…put God…in a linear time-stream?

I didn’t, people do it, not noticing that God can only perform one action. Performing second action is logically impossible in state of timeless.

Does it?

That is the only solution since God is at state of timeless and could not experiencing anything extra since it counts as a extra action.

Discussed? Asserted. By you. Not proved. You said so. That’s all.

If we accept that God has the knowledge of creation as series as frames then it could not know which frame follows with another frame because of two reasons, first that define a sense of time and directionality in state of timeless which is not allowed, second it is against our free will.

:ehh: These limits you place on God…Who’s called, “Ever ancient, ever new”…They’re very strange.

They are not strange but logically impossible. First God can only perform one perfect action which is creation. If we accept that God can perform more action then either God knowledge of creation is perfect, which means creation is perfect, then any extra act on creation means that state creation changes which is against perfection of God knowledge; or God knowledge is imperfect.

Mayhaps He *knows *when He wants to act?

What is “When?” in state of timeless.

Perhaps He knows all the outcomes there could ever be?

Can you explain what knowledge of current state of creation means in state of timeless? One is subject of change and another one not.

Or His knowledge is so perfect that it accounts even for His actions? And all the actions of the free willed creatures?

Assuming that God could perform many actions, extra action means that either God first action that was creation was imperfect which means that God knowledge was imperfect so it needs extra intervention to correct creation and its knowledge.

 

[Bahman]

If God didn’t sustain us at every moment we wouldn’t exist!

Creation doesn’t need anything to sustain itself for two strong reason:

1. Creation is perfect and complete
2. God (in state of timeless) can only perform one action (which was creation)

 

[Bahman]

??? Is my english that bad?

I will repeat the sentence:

The Theory predicts that a body traveling faster than a relatively motionless one will experience time slower. (So a person travelling at the close to the speed of light will age less than the people he left on earth)
This was CONFIRMED by experiments carried out both here on earth and in space.
This part of the theory of relativity has been confirmed experimentally.

Now philosophy is or it should be based in reason and logic, it is no good that someone says, “I don’t like this ideas therefore I refuse to consider them”
So before someone claims that “time” is a figment of our colective immagination, I would like some pretty conclusive evidence to back it up.
Just saying “time does not exist” will not cut it.
Because if “causality rate” is affected by the speed of the subject we have a problem.

Can you please explain what is the meaning of time in a universe that is completely freezed?

 

[Bahman]

Just catching up, so forgive me if I repeat a post, but if two actions are impossible, then one is likewise so for the same reasons…time.

You say two actions define a time, but logically one need only a single action.
There is before and there is after. Time.

Your claim that God could only create and nothing more still has no logical basis.

That means that the act of creation and God existence happened at the same point. There is no concept of time involve since there is only one action. For time you at least needs two events/actions.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

…

A creation which cannot evolve on its own could not exist because, as we discussed God in state of timeless cannot perform the second action, so the act of sustaining creation by God is false.

unless sustaining creation is part of the act of creation. God being outside of time is in the always present moment of creation.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Yes actually the aging process is slowed down. We know, that this is true because we can measure the slow down of the processes that govern the atoms, that are the basis of how we measure time to extraordinary precision.
Since we are all made of atoms that make up molecules and build what all matter is.
However for the person or persons traveling close to the speed of light they would not feel any different and would believe that time was running at “normal” rate.

–

but the atomic clock did slow down, yes. so from its perspective it must feel itself slowing.

 

[JerryZ]

Can you please explain what is the meaning of time in a universe that is completely freezed?

Well, time being a “component” of the Universe would also freeze

 

[JerryZ]

but the atomic clock did slow down, yes. so from its perspective it must feel itself slowing.

Nope actually it cannot, because it lacks a frame of reference.
In other words a time keeping device is self referencial, if the attributes that make it measure time change. It (the clock) has no way of knowing that.
By the same token anyone traveling inside the ship that is travelling at close to the speed of light have no way of knowing they are aging slower that the people NOT aboard it.
Again they lack a reference to compare.
Also any clocks or watches aboard would show the same “local” time.

In the experiments done to test the theory. Multiple atomic clocks were synchronized and some were sent into space travelling at speeds of 40,000 km/Hr. while this is not anywere near the speed of light, it was sufficient to allow to predict how many seconds difference the clocks would accrue compared to the ones here on Earth during the flight.

Without this vital information GPS could not be as accurate as it is. Since the GPS satellites do travel very fast and the effect this has affects the accuracy of the system.
If you are interested you can read additional info here:

physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/feb/17/gravitys-effect-on-time-confirmed

–

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Nope actually it cannot, because it lacks a frame of reference.
In other words a time keeping device is self referencial, if the attributes that make it measure time change. It (the clock) has no way of knowing that.
By the same token anyone traveling inside the ship that is travelling at close to the speed of light have no way of knowing they are aging slower that the people NOT aboard it.
Again they lack a reference to compare.
Also any clocks or watches aboard would show the same “local” time.

In the experiments done to test the theory. Multiple atomic clocks were synchronized and some were sent into space travelling at speeds of 40,000 km/Hr. while this is not anywere near the speed of light, it was sufficient to allow to predict how many seconds difference the clocks would accrue compared to the ones here on Earth during the flight.

Without this vital information GPS could not be as accurate as it is. Since the GPS satellites do travel very fast and the effect this has affects the accuracy of the system.
If you are interested you can read additional info here:

physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/feb/17/gravitys-effect-on-time-confirmed

–

so what does the clock experience when it slows to a stop?

 

[JerryZ]

so what does the clock experience when it slows to a stop?

If we consider that time is the rate at which changes occur in our Universe, electrons that spin around the nuclei of atoms slow down their speed, all resonant frequencies would also slow down.
The only way for the clock to totally stop is that it must travel as fast as the speed of light.
And that, the Theory of Relativity states is an impossibility.

–

 

[Paddy_Walker]

If we consider that time is the rate at which changes occur in our Universe, electrons that spin around the nuclei of atoms slow down their speed, all resonant frequencies would also slow down.
The only way for the clock to totally stop is that it must travel as fast as the speed of light.
And that, the Theory of Relativity states is an impossibility.

–

why is that impossible? in space there are no friction forces to slow acceleration. An accelerated object should logically continue to accelerate to the speed of light and then beyond it. Or is there some force which would slow the object before it can reach the speed of light.

 

[JerryZ]

why is that impossible? in space there are no friction forces to slow acceleration. An accelerated object should logically continue to accelerate to the speed of light and then beyond it. Or is there some force which would slow the object before it can reach the speed of light.

Oh may, nope you cannot go faster than the speed of light.
One of the effect of speed as stated in prior posts is that time slows down however another effect is that the mass of the object, increases.
Now acceleration is a force that acts on the object and all other thing being equal if acceleration is constant then we expect a constant increase in speed.
But all other things are NOT equal. Mass is increasing as speed increases.
Therefore to keep acceleration constant we need to increase the energy or force applied to the object. (propulsion) This is an exponential function, not a linear one.
By the time we aproach the speed of light the energy required to accelerate is unimaginable high.

The physics involved you can read here:

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

Also I would recommend reading on the theory of relativity which is the foundation of all this.

–

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Oh may, nope you cannot go faster than the speed of light.
One of the effect of speed as stated in prior posts is that time slows down however another effect is that the mass of the object, increases.
Now acceleration is a force that acts on the object and all other thing being equal if acceleration is constant then we expect a constant increase in speed.
But all other things are NOT equal. Mass is increasing as speed increases.
Therefore to keep acceleration constant we need to increase the energy or force applied to the object. (propulsion) This is an exponential function, not a linear one.
By the time we aproach the speed of light the energy required to accelerate is unimaginable high.

The physics involved you can read here:

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

Also I would recommend reading on the theory of relativity which is the foundation of all this.

–

but how do you know that mass increases with speed? If you increased speed to infinity, and if this is an infinite universe theres no reason why not, then you would increase mass to infinity, and thats impossible because you’d have a clock of infinite mass plus the rest of the universe.
And in space it does not matter how massive an object is, it will keep on accelerating without additional force. Or to look at it the other way around, how does a planet slow down/decelerate if it experiences no frictional forces?

 

[JerryZ]

but how do you know that mass increases with speed? If you increased speed to infinity, and if this is an infinite universe theres no reason why not, then you would increase mass to infinity, and thats impossible because you’d have a clock of infinite mass plus the rest of the universe.
And in space it does not matter how massive an object is, it will keep on accelerating without additional force. Or to look at it the other way around, how does a planet slow down/decelerate if it experiences no frictional forces?

Science needs to follow the scientific method. A methodology to test if our ideas (theories) are correct.
The effects described in my previous posts are described in the “Theory of Relativity” by Albert Einstein.
Scientists (physicists) devised experiments to test the theory.
One such experiment was to accelerate particles close to the speed of light.
To do so they built particle accelerators that need to be under vacuum.
Here they showed that it is impossible to accelarate up to the speed of light.
The Large Hadron Collider has been able to accelarete Hidrogen nuclei (1 Proton) to 99.99% the speed of light.
The energy required keeps going up exponentially. And the only possible reason for this to be so, is because the mass of the particle increases. The mass increase has been measured and tested and totally agrees with the theory.
This has been totally confirmed experimentally now and no one can deny it. At not any one considered seriously

–

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Science needs to follow the scientific method. A methodology to test if our ideas (theories) are correct.
The effects described in my previous posts are described in the “Theory of Relativity” by Albert Einstein.
Scientists (physicists) devised experiments to test the theory.
One such experiment was to accelerate particles close to the speed of light.
To do so they built particle accelerators that need to be under vacuum.
Here they showed that it is impossible to accelarate up to the speed of light.
The Large Hadron Collider has been able to accelarete Hidrogen nuclei (1 Proton) to 99.99% the speed of light.
The energy required keeps going up exponentially. And the only possible reason for this to be so, is because the mass of the particle increases. The mass increase has been measured and tested and totally agrees with the theory.
This has been totally confirmed experimentally now and no one can deny it. At not any one considered seriously

–

I’ll bet they were using magnetic fields to accelerate the proton. To my mind that would be analogous to trying to accelerate an electric field faster than a magnetic field,( imagining for a moment it was possible), but using the electric fields own magnetic field to accelerate it.
To put it another way, its like trying to lift yourself by your own bootlaces. The possible speed of the proton may just be limited as a function of its interaction with a magnetic field.
But if you pushed the proton into an infinite space it should continue to accelerate and I cannot think of any forces within it so to speak which would slow its acceleration.

 

[JerryZ]

I’ll bet they were using magnetic fields to accelerate the proton. To my mind that would be analogous to trying to accelerate an electric field faster than a magnetic field,( imagining for a moment it was possible), but using the electric fields own magnetic field to accelerate it.
To put it another way, its like trying to lift yourself by your own bootlaces. The possible speed of the proton may just be limited as a function of its interaction with a magnetic field.
But if you pushed the proton into an infinite space it should continue to accelerate and I cannot think of any forces within it so to speak which would slow its acceleration.

Actually magnets are involved except they are used to steer the beam to follow the path the scientists want it to. Electric Fields are used to accelerate the particles.
As for infinite space Actually the LHC is a ring! so the particles HAVE infinite space, they go round and round.
I am afraid you need to give up It is impossible to accelerate up to 100% the speed of light. It is a hard barrier. The limit is due to the mass of the proton increasing at each minuscule increase in speed. We simply cannot add enough energy.
Again I would encourage you to read more about it here:

scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1571

–

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Actually magnets are involved except they are used to steer the beam to follow the path the scientists want it to. Electric Fields are used to accelerate the particles.
As for infinite space Actually the LHC is a ring! so the particles HAVE infinite space, they go round and round.
I am afraid you need to give up It is impossible to accelerate up to 100% the speed of light. It is a hard barrier. The limit is due to the mass of the proton increasing at each minuscule increase in speed. We simply cannot add enough energy.
Again I would encourage you to read more about it here:

scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1571

–

I hate giving up. Its impossible using an electric field. Now I just have to figure out why.