How does an eternal act turn into temporal acts?

[Wesrock]

This is an analogy so it has limitations in representing a model of reality, but if I touch my hand flat against a piece of paper in one act of touching, I am touching multiple spatial points at once. I do not need to convert my one act to multiple acts in order to account for it touching multiple spatial points. Similarly, God’s one act can touch multiple temporal points without needing to convert to mutiple temporal acts.

 

[Aulef]

I answered that God’s act does not turn into temporal one because it doesn’t change.

Actually, there is no point in speaking in terms of time when it comes to God.

I’ll try to make an analogy. The Pure Act is kind of like the sun illuminating the earth. This luminary shines our planet at once, but earthlings cannot see it this way. However, they can move over the illuminated surface in order to see its iluminated parts. And the process of moving from one place to another is time passing.

 

[STT]

If “you need something which converts the timeless act to multiple temporal acts”, then the

This is not correct.

 

[STT]

This is an analogy so it has limitations in representing a model of reality, but if I touch my hand flat against a piece of paper in one act of touching, I am touching multiple spatial points at once. I do not need to convert my one act to multiple acts in order to account for it touching multiple spatial points. Similarly, God’s one act can touch multiple temporal points without needing to convert to mutiple temporal acts.

My claim is against what you explained too. How do your mind which has no location can affect something local?

 

[STT]

I answered that God’s act does not turn into temporal one because it doesn’t change.

It has too. We observe continuous change in things. For that you need continuous sustainer. God’s act however is not continuous.

Actually, there is no point in speaking in terms of time when it comes to God.

I understand that part. What we experience however is temporal.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

This is an analogy so it has limitations in representing a model of reality, but if I touch my hand flat against a piece of paper in one act of touching, I am touching multiple spatial points at once. I do not need to convert my one act to multiple acts in order to account for it touching multiple spatial points. Similarly, God’s one act can touch multiple temporal points without needing to convert to mutiple temporal acts.

My claim is against what you explained too. How do your mind which has no location can affect something local?

Is this about a person and his body? If it’s still about the original post and God, can you please elaborate?

 

[STT]

It is especial case of OP. We live in time therefore we can affect reality temporarily. Our mind is not however physical therefore it has no location. It however can cause things which has location. In case of God things are worst to accept. God has no location in time and space. The question is how He could sustain the creation which is temporal and has extension.

 

[Wesrock]

It is especial case of OP. We live in time therefore we can affect reality temporarily. Our mind is not however physical therefore it has no location. It however can cause things which has location. In case of God things are worst to accept. God has no location in time and space. The question is how He could sustain the creation which is temporal and has extension.

The error seems to be that your model still has the mind as some type of substance or material that needs to interact with physical matter. It’s an immaterial operation, but not as if there is some ethereal mechanics to it. Rather, it’s something that a human being simply carries out by virtue of being a human being.

I’m not sure how to explain it other than that you still seem to be thinking in a Cartesian, mechanical sense, and not an Aristotlean sense. It’s not a part interacting with another part, it’s simply an operation a human being does as a whole. It’s not reducible. It’s an “emergent property,” kind of, of a human substance.

 

[STT]

The error seems to be that your model still has the mind as some type of substance or material that needs to interact with physical matter. It’s an immaterial operation, but not as if there is some ethereal mechanics to it. Rather, it’s something that a human being simply carries out by virtue of being a human being.

I’m not sure how to explain it other than that you still seem to be thinking in a Cartesian, mechanical sense, and not an Aristotlean sense. It’s not a part interacting with another part, it’s simply an operation a human being does as a whole. It’s not reducible. It’s an “emergent property,” kind of, of a human substance.

I understand Aristotle. Matter is made of particles. Particles organize themselves in different way, forms. Form gives rise to emergence of different quality, liquid, gas, etc. My problem with him is that you cannot personify form. Form changes when organization change. Form therefore is physical without it things could not be different. There are different issue related to his model too, like how form can give rise to free will. Behavior of a thing is a function of how particle behave. Particle behave deterministically therefore the behavior of the thing is deterministic too unless a magic happen, emergence of something new, mind for example. Mind in his model however vanishes upon death. Therefore Cartesian dualism is the only true model if you believe in life after death. This model however has its own problems as it is illustrated in my previous posts.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

If “you need something which converts a timeless act to multiple temporal acts”

This is not correct.

Umm… that was your claim, remember?

 

[Gorgias]

Aulef:

I answered that God’s act does not turn into temporal one because it doesn’t change.

It has too. We observe continuous change in things. For that you need continuous sustainer. God’s act however is not continuous.

Actually, there is no point in speaking in terms of time when it comes to God.

I understand that part. What we experience however is temporal.

Your problem, I think, is that you’re not correctly perceiving different frames of reference. From our frame of reference, God’s act does appear continuous. From our frame of reference, God’s eternal act does appear temporal.

 

[STT]

Umm… that was your claim, remember?

No, that is not my claim. My claim is that universe could not exist without a converter if God sustain it with a timeless act.

 

[STT]

Your problem, I think, is that you’re not correctly perceiving different frames of reference. From our frame of reference, God’s act does appear continuous. From our frame of reference, God’s eternal act does appear temporal.

Temporal change is continuous.

 

[Gorgias]

Temporal change is continuous.

And yet… it’s not. It’s possible to quantify time into tiny, discrete instants, and observe discrete states (which differ from one moment to the next). If you want to claim that it’s possible to view temporal change as if it were continuous, that’s one thing.

My claim is that universe could not exist without a converter if God sustain it with a timeless act.

Right – that “you need something which converts a timeless act to multiple temporal acts”! And yet, when I point out that this claim leads to paradox, you attempt to reformulate the claim (but still say the same thing)!

 

[Dovekin]

Behavior of a thing is a function of how particle behave. Particle behave deterministically therefore the behavior of the thing is deterministic too unless a magic happen, emergence of something new, mind for example

Particles do not behave deterministically. You might be able to say a single particle can be seen as behaving deterministically, but as soon as you introduce another, the system becomes complex and chaotic.

This complexity is not simply an add on, more complex, that can be solved with better equations. It is inherent, with more true things than can be accounted for by a deterministic solution. (Gödel) in your words, any real world system is indeterminate, with magic happening, rather than being determined by a closed set of rules.

My claim is that universe could not exist without a converter if God sustain it with a timeless act.

An act that transcends time is present within every moment. God’s creating of the universe is in every bit of spacetime. There is no need for a converter.

 

[STT]

Right – that “you need something which converts a timeless act to multiple temporal acts”! And yet, when I point out that this claim leads to paradox, you attempt to reformulate the claim (but still say the same thing)!

What paradox? Could you please elaborate?

 

[STT]

Particles do not behave deterministically. You might be able to say a single particle can be seen as behaving deterministically, but as soon as you introduce another, the system becomes complex and chaotic.

Physics says different thing. There exists an analytical solution for a system with two particles. A system with three particles is believed to be chaotic. We don’t have any proof for that. Therefore the behavior of system could be a function of behavior of particles.

This complexity is not simply an add on, more complex, that can be solved with better equations. It is inherent, with more true things than can be accounted for by a deterministic solution. (Gödel) in your words, any real world system is indeterminate, with magic happening, rather than being determined by a closed set of rules.

It seems so but I have difficulty to understand emergence.

An act that transcends time is present within every moment. God’s creating of the universe is in every bit of spacetime. There is no need for a converter.

Does God have any location in spacetime?

 

[Gorgias]

What paradox? Could you please elaborate?

Certainly. On one hand, we’re dealing with your problems accepting the analogy of the table which – as a single sub-stratum – supports multiple actions. I’ve proposed that the universe itself acts in this way.

On the other hand, you’re claiming that there needs to be some sort of entity that allows for the ‘conversion’ of God’s eternal act into temporal reality. (On philosophical bases, I would reject your argument that there’s an external ‘converter’ that is necessary, for a few reasons. Nevertheless, we can still discuss the problems with your assertion…)

But, the ‘paradox’ here is that you’re asking for a ‘converter’ (from eternal to temporal) for the act of ‘sustaining’ the universe. However, this presumes that the universe exists. If the universe exists, then it itself would require the same ‘converter’. So, assuming the universe exists and then positing a problem which would be intractable in the universe, would create an issue which would require us to reject that the universe exists. However, the universe does exist. Therefore… paradox. And, therefore, we must reject your argument.

I would assert that your issue is the lack of recognition that we’re really just dealing with a ‘frame of reference’ distinction. (For example, when we deal with general relativity and velocities near the speed of light, we don’t need external conversions – we merely recognize that we’re dealing with two distinct frames of reference, and each of these frames of reference perceive reality differently.) In this case, you’re looking at God’s perception, and our perception, and attempting to posit that there needs to be a ‘converter’ to get from one frame of reference to another. That’s simply ludicrous. Instead, we would simply assert that God acts singly – in other words, eternally – and we perceive the effects of His act temporally – in other words, as if there were discrete actions.

I’ve identified a number of issues, but only fully addressed the particular question you’ve asked here. Hope this helps.

 

[Dovekin]

It seems so but I have difficulty to understand emergence

Why?

Does God have any location in spacetime?

God has every location in spacetime.

 

[Lucretius]

What you are saying doesn’t make any sense. We either have a temporal phenomena or timeless phenomena. There is no other option.

“Timeless” is understood as a lack of any of the imperfections of temporal existence. It doesn’t mean lacking the perfections of temporal existence, such as existing within a particular moment.

Eternity may be likened to existing in all moments of time, while remaining completely unified, and without need to obtain anything through time, since it is already possessed.

I am afraid that your example doesn’t fit with the problem that we are dealing with right now. There is of course a medium needed to convert one act to multiple act.

What reason must there be a “medium” between eternity and temporality?