The gap between eternal and sequential act

[Vico]

How the universe could be real and have proper motion if eternal act doesn’t turn into sequential acts?

God acts through secondary causes. There are natural laws, and angels, and man, etc. God provides for all through that original design.

 

[Bahman]

God acts through secondary causes. There are natural laws, and angels, and man, etc. God provides for all through that original design.

What is the use of secondary cause if natural laws exist so creation can have correct motion? So God create by primary cause and let creation evolves based on laws of nature.

 

[Bahman]

Correct. An eternal act is different than an act that takes place within the context of a temporal universe.

Good.

So, tell me, then… is God’s existence temporal? That makes no sense, because he pre-existed the temporal universe and His existence transcends time and the creation that gives rise to a temporal framework.

I agree.

So… do you experience God temporally or eternally? Since we are part of this temporal framework, our only experience is temporal, and therefore, we perceive all things as if they were within the temporal framework.

That I agree.

However, that does not mean that our perception is reality. In other words, God’s act is not temporal, but eternal – even if, from our perception, it seems to be temporal and sequential.

We perceive temporal since we are design to perceive temporal. But I have to stress that universe is temporal too otherwise we couldn’t possibly live within. So things is not just a matter frame work in other word universe is temporal.

Therefore, no gap, and no sequentiality in God’s act of sustaining creation.

That doesn’t follow from the rest of your argument.

I think based on our design we can only live and experience temporal.

That I agree. I have never had any experience to show opposite.

Why should it be temporalized? I’ve already provided an explanation that describes why it’s not temporal.

You didn’t explain it. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises.

If you want to assert that His eternal action must be ‘temporalized’, then you’ll need to explain why this is so.

It is very simple. The universe is temporal since only one of its state can be actual at any given point.

Not a problem at all. Take, for example, a movie reel. To the characters inside the movie, only one frame is ‘actual’ at any time; in the original Star Wars movie, the character Han Solo has no idea what will happen to him in the next movie or even in the next moment. However, for us, who exist outside that framework, all the frames are ‘actual’ at any instant. For example, the director of the movies know not only what’s happening to Han Solo at 33:57 of the movie, but also at 33:58, 33:59, 34:00, and in fact, throughout the entire movie… all at once. No problem.

This I understand.

Thank you. Yes, we need a reference point. However, God does not. You’ve finally reached the point we’ve been trying to explain to you: your objection concerns only humans and our ability to perceive. It does not reflect back on God. Glad we could explain that for you.

That I knew. The problem is that you need a reference point. This means that either this reference point is in God’s mind which leads to a paradox or we accept that the reference point exists in creation which means that universe is temporal yet you have the gap problem meaning that how eternal act should be turn into sequential act.

The universe doesn’t sustain itself. Ever heard of the law of nature named ‘entropy’?

Yes, universe can sustain itself based on laws of nature once it is create.

 

[Bahman]

Time is an illusion? Can I use that for an excused absence to save vacation ‘time’?

Yet time is ‘always’ and apparently all inclusive, God within it?

So a constant uncreated illusion, of which all things (illusions?) are subject to and use?

We do have an agreement here - If there is a God, He does live in His Creation. So I’ll share the thought that He is in time, but in a different way than finding Him on Google maps.

God is also outside time because, well we go back to the earlier answer - create and sustain. That which is required to exist for time to ‘be’ would fit into God’s plans and ability for those two items.

I think the conflict is that I’m interested in what is true, though I do appreciate imagination.

I like analyzing the thoughts on this site.

Even if the thought has a mathematical inconsistency, like one being more than one, or ‘turned into’ more than one because it ‘should’ per an anonymous person on a website.

Have a great rest of the week!

Take care,

Mike

Do you have any sense to perceive time? No. Can you then experience time? No. What we experience are simply shape and motion.

 

[Vico]

What is the use of secondary cause if natural laws exist so creation can have correct motion? So God create by primary cause and let creation evolves based on laws of nature.

It is part of the secondary cause. Also there is more that what is natural, there is the supernatural.

 

[Gorgias]

So things is not just a matter frame work in other word universe is temporal.

The universe is the frame of reference.

That doesn’t follow from the rest of your argument.

Sure it does.

God is eternal – His act is eternal. We are in a temporal frame of reference – we experience things as if they were temporal and sequential. Therefore, there is no sequentiality in God’s act – it is simply perceived as sequential. Therefore, there is no ‘gap’, as you put it, in which God’s act must be squeezed into a temporal framework. There is the perception of an eternal act in a temporal framework, but the act itself is not temporal.

Let’s go back to the train whistle example: when you perceive the whistle’s tone as rising and then falling, you can temporally and sequentially describe it: at t0, the tone is x; at t1, it’s x+d, at t2, it’s x again. What you wish to do is ask the person on the train about the way that he’s changed the tone from t0 to t1 to t2, but he’ll tell you that he’s not changing anything – he’s just playing one note. Period. Similar thing going on here – you want to ask God “did you sustain the universe last week? Last night? Last hour? Then you performed three distinct, sequential acts of ‘sustaining’!” But God – being outside of our frame of reference, and for whom there is no ‘last week’ or ‘last hour’, but simply an eternal ‘now’ – is simply performing a non-temporal single act of sustaining His creation.

It is very simple. The universe is temporal since only one of its state can be actual at any given point.

To our perspective? Yes, that seems correct.

To God’s perspective? No – all states in the universe are actual and immediate to him. He is not bound by our perception of time.

That I knew. The problem is that you need a reference point.

Again, you need a reference point; God does not.

This means that either this reference point is in God’s mind which leads to a paradox or we accept that the reference point exists in creation which means that universe is temporal yet you have the gap problem meaning that how eternal act should be turn into sequential act.

Again, neither: I agree that there isn’t such a ‘reference point’ in God’s mind. Yet, the presence of a ‘reference point’ doesn’t mean that the eternal act hasn’t turned into a sequential act – it merely means that you (who have this ‘reference point’) are perceiving the eternal act from within a temporal framework.

We’re simply repeating ourselves now. You keep asking the question, and you keep getting the answer.

 

[ffg]

Do you have any sense to perceive time? No. Can you then experience time? No. What we experience are simply shape and motion.

I take it you don’t see the contradiction in arguing FOR sequential, and FOR sequential being an illusion.

Go tell someone in solitary who sees no shape moving that time is an illusion. I’m sure once that bulb is lit, they’ll be enlightened and write-off their sequential thoughts. Stay on the outside for safety.

There is a picture of me on the fridge from ~25 years ago. From that simple observation, it’s easy to see I’ve experienced that time has passed.

What do you think you gain from stating that time is an illusion? (If other than a similar angle as Jesus mythers)

Take care,

Mike

 

[Bahman]

It is part of the secondary cause. Also there is more that what is natural, there is the supernatural.

I don’t understand how your answer is related to my post.

 

[Bahman]

The universe is the frame of reference.

Sure it does.

God is eternal – His act is eternal. We are in a temporal frame of reference – we experience things as if they were temporal and sequential. Therefore, there is no sequentiality in God’s act – it is simply perceived as sequential. Therefore, there is no ‘gap’, as you put it, in which God’s act must be squeezed into a temporal framework. There is the perception of an eternal act in a temporal framework, but the act itself is not temporal.

Let’s go back to the train whistle example: when you perceive the whistle’s tone as rising and then falling, you can temporally and sequentially describe it: at t0, the tone is x; at t1, it’s x+d, at t2, it’s x again. What you wish to do is ask the person on the train about the way that he’s changed the tone from t0 to t1 to t2, but he’ll tell you that he’s not changing anything – he’s just playing one note. Period. Similar thing going on here – you want to ask God “did you sustain the universe last week? Last night? Last hour? Then you performed three distinct, sequential acts of ‘sustaining’!” But God – being outside of our frame of reference, and for whom there is no ‘last week’ or ‘last hour’, but simply an eternal ‘now’ – is simply performing a non-temporal single act of sustaining His creation.

To our perspective? Yes, that seems correct.

To God’s perspective? No – all states in the universe are actual and immediate to him. He is not bound by our perception of time.

Again, you need a reference point; God does not.

Again, neither: I agree that there isn’t such a ‘reference point’ in God’s mind. Yet, the presence of a ‘reference point’ doesn’t mean that the eternal act hasn’t turned into a sequential act – it merely means that you (who have this ‘reference point’) are perceiving the eternal act from within a temporal framework.

We’re simply repeating ourselves now. You keep asking the question, and you keep getting the answer.

Universe is not frame of reference. We have two frames of references, namely temporal and eternal. First, lets look at how universe evolves in temporal frame of reference. Universe exist and moves based on God’s causation. By this we mean that any state in a given point, s, change into another state at later point, s’ by the following relation s’=L(s). This leads to a series of states S={s0, s1, s2,…} in which only of the state is actual at any given point. Now lets look at eternal point of view. We have nothing before creation act, N, and all states of universe are created at the point of creation, S’. This means that we have the following relation between two states S’=C(N) where C is the creation act and S’ has the same states as S with the difference that all the states are actual. So as you can see there is a difference between God causation in different frame of references because S’ is not equal to S. Hence we have a gap between eternal and sequential act.

 

[Vico]

I don’t understand how your answer is related to my post.

Originally Posted by Bahman
What is the use of secondary cause if natural laws exist so creation can have correct motion? So God create by primary cause and let creation evolves based on laws of nature.

Originally Posted by Vico
It [natural laws] is part of the secondary cause. Also there is more that what is natural, there is the supernatural.

 

[cjb_914]

Universe is not frame of reference. We have two frames of references, namely temporal and eternal. First, lets look at how universe evolves in temporal frame of reference. Universe exist and moves based on God’s causation. By this we mean that any state in a given point, s, change into another state at later point, s’ by the following relation s’=L(s). This leads to a series of states S={s0, s1, s2,…} in which only of the state is actual at any given point. Now lets look at eternal point of view. We have nothing before creation act, N, and all states of universe are created at the point of creation, S’. This means that we have the following relation between two states S’=C(N) where C is the creation act and S’ has the same states as S with the difference that all the states are actual. So as you can see there is a difference between God causation in different frame of references because S’ is not equal to S. Hence we have a gap between eternal and sequential act.

The issue is you are referring to a series of states as distinct from eternity. Each moment is eternally willed by God. Each of the elements sequence of states in the universe S= {s0, s1, s2,…sn} is willed by God eternally and so each is actual at all times, S=S’. We experience a series of states because that is how God wills us to do so. We are beings of spirit, and flesh. A being of pure spirit is present in a moment in as far as it acts upon that moment. Since we are beings of spirit tied to a physical body, you can think of it like this: We (as beings of spirit) are only permitted to exert our will upon the current moment that God wills us to experience, and we are only allowed to express our will using the faculties of our physical bodies. When we are no longer thus bound, we will be able to exert our will wherever we so choose (we will be able to travel at the speed of thought). You see this in scripture where Christ appears suddenly to the disciples and departs suddenly, and with some of the Saints who were close enough to God in this life to bilocate.

Another problem (similar to the above): Eternity isn’t time stretching out infinitely in either direction. There is no ‘before creation’. The universe was, is, and will be eternally willed by God to exist as it does, has, and will exist in the next moment and all those that have passed, are passing, and will come to pass. C(N) doesn’t exist. From our perspective?C(N) = s0. But that is simply a limitation on our existence being currently bound in a temporal way. Again, as above: We are permitted only to exert our will through the means of this body at the “present moment”. That sequence of states is literally only a limitation on our will and actions which we perceive as a sequence. We very easily could be allowed to experience all of time simultaneously, God simply does not permit it.

In summary:

The statements:

Universe is not frame of reference. We have two frames of references, namely temporal and eternal.

Are not correct. There is only eternity. Temporality is strictly a limitation imposed on our ability to act.

 

[Bahman]

Originally Posted by Bahman
What is the use of secondary cause if natural laws exist so creation can have correct motion? So God create by primary cause and let creation evolves based on laws of nature.

Originally Posted by Vico
It [natural laws] is part of the secondary cause. Also there is more that what is natural, there is the supernatural.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that laws of nature is due to second cause. Is that correct? If yes I offer you to read post #29.

 

[Vico]

If I understand you correctly you are saying that laws of nature is due to second cause. Is that correct? If yes I offer you to read post #29.

No, rather what I wrote.

It [natural laws] is part of the secondary cause. Also there is more that what is natural, there is the supernatural.

There is no time before creation nor in the eternal. It is only within the creation that time is utilized.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote of four kinds of law:

• Eternal: “the whole community of the universe” is governed by God who “is not subject to time but is eternal”
• Divine: the revealed word of God which we need because our reason is inadequate to reveal it to us and we need to be guided to our supernatural end.
• Natural: “The natural law is promulgated by the very fact that God instilled it into men’s minds so as to be known by them naturally”
• Human: created by man for the purpose of implementing natural law.

 

[Bahman]

The issue is you are referring to a series of states as distinct from eternity. Each moment is eternally willed by God. Each of the elements sequence of states in the universe S= {s0, s1, s2,…sn} is willed by God eternally and so each is actual at all times, S=S’. We experience a series of states because that is how God wills us to do so. We are beings of spirit, and flesh. A being of pure spirit is present in a moment in as far as it acts upon that moment. Since we are beings of spirit tied to a physical body, you can think of it like this: We (as beings of spirit) are only permitted to exert our will upon the current moment that God wills us to experience, and we are only allowed to express our will using the faculties of our physical bodies. When we are no longer thus bound, we will be able to exert our will wherever we so choose (we will be able to travel at the speed of thought). You see this in scripture where Christ appears suddenly to the disciples and departs suddenly, and with some of the Saints who were close enough to God in this life to bilocate.

Another problem (similar to the above): Eternity isn’t time stretching out infinitely in either direction. There is no ‘before creation’. The universe was, is, and will be eternally willed by God to exist as it does, has, and will exist in the next moment and all those that have passed, are passing, and will come to pass. C(N) doesn’t exist. From our perspective?C(N) = s0. But that is simply a limitation on our existence being currently bound in a temporal way. Again, as above: We are permitted only to exert our will through the means of this body at the “present moment”. That sequence of states is literally only a limitation on our will and actions which we perceive as a sequence. We very easily could be allowed to experience all of time simultaneously, God simply does not permit it.

In summary:

The statements:

Are not correct. There is only eternity. Temporality is strictly a limitation imposed on our ability to act.

I think that is how you understand the problem. I can represent it as following picture

God eternal act
I I I I
V V V V
N-> s0->s1->s2…

Where each vertical arrows are eternal acts and horizontal arrows represent sequential acts. But this picture is problematic because eternal and sequential acts cannot exit together in the same perspective because one of the act is temporal whereas another one is eternal. In reality there is a simpler picture as following

N->s0->s1->s2…

where the firs arrow is God’s creation act and the rest of horizontal arrows are laws of nature. I have no idea why do you have any problem with this picture.

Moreover the fact that our acts are limited is not due to the fact we are limited. Universe and whatever within just simply evolve accordingly.

 

[cjb_914]

I think that is how you understand the problem. I can represent it…

Let me stop you there: you are saying given a series of states, and an eternal creator the series of states must not be sequentially created, but only set in motion (otherwise an eternal being is changing). Your conclusion does (correctly) follow from your premise but I am attacking that premise. The picture isn’t

God eternal act
I I I I
V V V V
N-> s0->s1->s2…

It is closer to this:
Within God’s eternal mind exists a couple arrays and a matrix:
{WS0, WS1…WSX}
Time is for each creature {WC0, WC1,…WCX} there is a set of actions:
{
WC0A{WN, WS1,…, WS250,987,030,375,897},
WC0A{WN, WS1,…, WS250,987,030,375,897, WS250,987,030,375,898}
…
WC1A…
…
WCXA…
}

Where A is the action of the creature upon each state set.
Further where each WSX includes the results of all the actions each creature takes at any given state.

W is just to differentiate my notation from Bahmans. The universe is like a matrix of things in the eternal mind of God. Unfathomable in its size, and complexity, but each element is simultaneously extant. The universe can’t exist on its own. It doesn’t tick. It doesn’t move it just is. God sees every element that could have been in the data structure, and every element that is in the data structure. Eternally.

I see where you are and I was stuck there too for a while. I already explained how you resolve this issue. The problem you are stating is demonstrating the fact that this issue is impossible to imagine and that your imagination wants to help. It can’t. You can represent it however you like, but at the end of the day? Any pictorial representation is going to lie to you, mine does, mine is closer to the truth, but it falls woefully short in its representations, and is lacking a lot of explanations for other things. The temporal nature of the universe is not at odds with eternity (in fact the temopral sequence is simply a limit on the universe, and the reason it is finite: infinite means without limits, and even if there’s an unbounded sequence in time it is still finite due to the internal subdivisions, we mathematicians have stolen the term and changed it slightly so it’s useful to us, but philosophically there’s a different notion of infinite).

You’ve as well demonstrated adaquately you either aren’t able or are unwilling to understand. I think it’s the latter, as it’s a tough pill to swallow that God’s will (permissive or ordaining will) indeed is required for every subatomic particle, every single moment, especially when you’re not ready to fully trust He exists. This isn’t something anyone can help you see, you’ll just have to come to terms with reality in God’s time. God bless.

AMDG
cjb_914

 

[Bahman]

Let me stop you there: you are saying given a series of states, and an eternal creator the series of states must not be sequentially created, but only set in motion (otherwise an eternal being is changing). Your conclusion does (correctly) follow from your premise but I am attacking that premise. The picture isn’t

God eternal act
I I I I
V V V V
N-> s0->s1->s2…

It is closer to this:
Within God’s eternal mind exists a couple arrays and a matrix:
{WS0, WS1…WSX}
Time is for each creature {WC0, WC1,…WCX} there is a set of actions:
{
WC0A{WN, WS1,…, WS250,987,030,375,897},
WC0A{WN, WS1,…, WS250,987,030,375,897, WS250,987,030,375,898}
…
WC1A…
…
WCXA…
}

Where A is the action of the creature upon each state set.
Further where each WSX includes the results of all the actions each creature takes at any given state.

I don’t understand your representation. It is not written clearly. Moreover what it was in the figure was my understanding from the way you explained the problem.

W is just to differentiate my notation from Bahmans. The universe is like a matrix of things in the eternal mind of God. Unfathomable in its size, and complexity, but each element is simultaneously extant. The universe can’t exist on its own. It doesn’t tick. It doesn’t move it just is. God sees every element that could have been in the data structure, and every element that is in the data structure. Eternally.

Why universe cannot exist on its own? Why the following picture has any problem N-> s0->s1->s2… where the first arrow is the creation act and the rest is laws of nature.

I see where you are and I was stuck there too for a while. I already explained how you resolve this issue. The problem you are stating is demonstrating the fact that this issue is impossible to imagine and that your imagination wants to help. It can’t. You can represent it however you like, but at the end of the day? Any pictorial representation is going to lie to you, mine does, mine is closer to the truth, but it falls woefully short in its representations, and is lacking a lot of explanations for other things. The temporal nature of the universe is not at odds with eternity (in fact the temopral sequence is simply a limit on the universe, and the reason it is finite: infinite means without limits, and even if there’s an unbounded sequence in time it is still finite due to the internal subdivisions, we mathematicians have stolen the term and changed it slightly so it’s useful to us, but philosophically there’s a different notion of infinite).

So you accept the fact that there is gap between eternal and sequential acts (bold part).

You’ve as well demonstrated adaquately you either aren’t able or are unwilling to understand. I think it’s the latter, as it’s a tough pill to swallow that God’s will (permissive or ordaining will) indeed is required for every subatomic particle, every single moment, especially when you’re not ready to fully trust He exists. This isn’t something anyone can help you see, you’ll just have to come to terms with reality in God’s time. God bless.

AMDG
cjb_914

I am willing to understand.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t understand your representation.

Then think of it this way: you represented the eternal act by a series of vertical arrows. That’s your problem right there. The representation should show only one eternal act, not a ‘series’ of ‘eternal acts’:

I’m going to flip it upside down, so that the temporal acts are on top. It’s not this (i.e., your assertion):

  S[sub]1[/sub] -> S[sub]2[/sub] -> S[sub]3[/sub]

  ^     ^     ^
  |     |     |

God's eternal act

But rather, it’s this:

+----------------+
|  S[sub]1[/sub] -> S[sub]2[/sub] -> S[sub]3[/sub] |
+----------------+
        ^  
        |  

God's eternal act

One eternal act; acting upon all of creation; uniformly and continuously, not independently and sequentially.

 

[Bahman]

Then think of it this way: you represented the eternal act by a series of vertical arrows. That’s your problem right there. The representation should show only one eternal act, not a ‘series’ of ‘eternal acts’:

I’m going to flip it upside down, so that the temporal acts are on top. It’s not this (i.e., your assertion):

  S[sub]1[/sub] -> S[sub]2[/sub] -> S[sub]3[/sub]

  ^     ^     ^
  |     |     |

God's eternal act

But rather, it’s this:

+----------------+
|  S[sub]1[/sub] -> S[sub]2[/sub] -> S[sub]3[/sub] |
+----------------+
        ^  
        |  

God's eternal act

One eternal act; acting upon all of creation; uniformly and continuously, not independently and sequentially.

I agree with your point about the second figure. This picture however is problematic since it combines eternal act with sequential acts where one is timeless and other is temporal. You cannot simply have a frame of reference like that.