Thomism and time intervals

[feltmeanings23]

On Thomism, since God has no potentiality, is his mentality static; does his knowledge stay the same? If so, does that mean God doesn’t know “It is now 2019” or (when 2020 transpires) “It is now 2020”?

Now the main question:

An interval is logically prior to any instant (as a line segment is prior to points on it). Instants are conceptual – we can divide instants further and further ad infinitum, but there’s a smallest unit of time, as with space. When a potential goes from not-actualized to actualized, it happens …?

A. Within the interval |–x–|–x–| x= AoP (actualization of potential)

B. Between* interval x|-----x|-----x|----x|

*Perhaps it would be better to say “at the very end of interval 1 and very beginning of interval 2”. Or that could be C. x–x–x

 

[Vico]

… does his knowledge stay the same? …

Vatican I, Chapter 1, Part 4

Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well [11] . All things are open and laid bare to his eyes [12] , even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.
11 Wis 8, 1.
12 Heb 4, 13.

 

[CRM_Brother]

With regards to time, we cannot really place the restrictions of actuality and potentiality we experience through our place within the system of space-time upon God as he is outside of time.

Msgr. John Wippel, Pope Benedict’s Thomistic adviser, described God with regards to time, act and potency in this way.

Say you are traveling down Route 66 (linear time) in a car. The road disappears before and behind you over the horizon. The road which you see at any given moment is the actuality of your current place. The road before and behind you past the horizon is the potentiality of your current place which is not currently actualized. This is the perspective, our perspective, of one who see the flow of space-time from within.

Now if you were to taken up high enough into geosynchronous orbit, you could see the entirety of Route 66 laid out before you on the surface of the earth and (with high powered magnification) track the journey of all the cars as they travel the road. This would be the viewpoint of time with regards to God. There is not potentiality in the experience of the Road. It is fully actualized. The only potential belongs to the cars as they travel.

So, God does know that “It is now 2019” and “It is now 2020” because he observes the creatures traveling through time identify it as such, just as the observer in orbit can observe the car’s current position on the road.

God Bless,
Br. Ben, CRM

 

[lelinator]

Say you are traveling down Route 66 (linear time) in a car. The road disappears before and behind you over the horizon. The road which you see at any given moment is the actuality of your current place. The road before and behind you past the horizon is the potentiality of your current place which is not currently actualized. This is the perspective, our perspective, of one who see the flow of space-time from within.

But this also means that the change from potency to act is an illusion, and the only thing that’s actually changing is the traveler’s perspective. So the the whole argument of an unmoved mover becomes moot.

But from God’s perspective, not even the traveler’s perspective is changing. So how does one account for change if your analogy is correct?

 

[CRM_Brother]

When we speak of the knowledge of God and actuality and potentiality, we must stray into an often overlooked concept which Aquinas briefly describes called Active Potency. Unfortunately, he does not speak directly about it past a single article in the Summa Theologiae. Instead, he fleshes out the concept as ancillary material in his lesser known topical treatises and commentaries. For a more in depth understanding, I would suggest St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross’s (Edith Stein) work Finite and Eternal Being. She uses Active Potency as a springboard for her Christian Phenomenological model.

We experience act and potency only though our status as finite creatures. We are, can be, are not, and cannot be. As such, change is possible for us. God is infinite: he simply is. Thus, true change for God is impossible. Here is the very essence of the unmoved mover. The fact that he can bring things into being is through his Active Potency. Aquinas uses the example of an artist. The piece of art yet to be created resides in the intellect of the artist. The artist does not experience potentiality through this thought, for it has nothing to do with himself. It is the potency of an external thing actively held in the mind. When the work of art is created, that potency is given act external to the initial image in the mind of the artist. As with all artists, the result does not perfectly reflect the original intellectual image. Throughout the artwork’s existence, that perfect image is still held in the mind of the creator and continues to be even after it is destroyed.

So too, does the knowledge of God not change when change is experienced in his creation. In the beginning, nothing existed apart from God, yet all that would exist already existed in potency within the his intellect. The act of creation brings forth an image of his intellect, but does not perfectly reflect the actuality of the image. So too, each past instant still actively exists within the mind of God as much as every future instant.

Our problem when speaking of actuality and potentiality with regards to God is that we often try to extrapolate our own experience within the bounded system of creation upon the nature of God. We must distinguish the differences between our own bounded system and the unbounded existence of God.

 

[Wesrock]

On Thomism, since God has no potentiality, is his mentality static; does his knowledge stay the same? If so, does that mean God doesn’t know “It is now 2019” or (when 2020 transpires) “It is now 2020”?

Time doesn’t pass for God. There isn’t God in 2019 and God in 2020. There is only God. He does not progress through temporal nows like we do, only his eternal now.

He does know everything that happens in what we call 2019 belongs to that year, and everything in 2020 to that year, and knows what each of OUR nows are and how they’re temporally related.

 

[lelinator]

Our problem when speaking of actuality and potentiality with regards to God is that we often try to extrapolate our own experience within the bounded system of creation upon the nature of God.

I totally agree. But I think that theists are just as likely to make that mistake as non-theists are. For example, you used the analogy of a traveler. But all that you actually did was to convert the temporal dimension into a spatial one. I understand that that was for the sake of making the analogy. But in actuality it would seem that an eternal being shouldn’t make such a distinction between past and present, or here and there. Everything should be in an eternal now, and differentiating them in any manner, even intellectually, would be to introduce a dimensionality that the first cause supposedly doesn’t have.

An artist understands that his creation will look one way at one point, and another way at another point, because the artist comprehends dimensions. They differentiate things temporally and spatially. But you seem to be projecting that same dimensional perspective onto God, and simply asserting that He sees them all at once, instead of what should actually be the case, that He doesn’t see these dimensional differentiations at all. Everything should exist in an eternal here and now. What that would look like, I don’t know. But it shouldn’t simply be like someone looking down on a traveler from above. It should be a perspective that doesn’t perceive dimensions at all.

 

[Evan]

The present theory of quantum mechanics show that time cannot be infinitely divided. Planck Time (PT) is the shortest possible length of time. So the question that comes to my mind: is the universe a series of static times, PT apart, or of time slices all of length PT with the universe never static. I believe the latter so objects actually have momentum. But the theory of what is time is really hard to concieve.