Time and God

[JDaniel]

Time is the measure of motion. This requires that mobile being exists. Further, it requires that other things coexist, in the universe, with any such mobile being. If I, for example, was the only being in the universe, how would I know that I moved? Where would I move to? Away from what? Toward what? Time, therefore, is like a meter stick (of great length), segmented into days, hours, and minutes (or whatever other names I would like to give them), like those of a standard clock. Therefore, until a multiplicity of beings exist (at a bare minimum, two) there would be no time. There would be nothing to measure.

Aquinas has written that there are Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God. The First Way, is the proof from motion. Essentially, Aquinas says that nothing is moved unless it is moved by another being. This is absolutely true. There are two kinds of beings in the universe: beings that can move themselves (in a special way) and beings that are stationary, unless induced to move by some other thing. That said, one might think that I am now denying my earlier premise. But, I am not.

Considering the latter being first, the stationary being, we can easily see that it does not move itself. A billiard ball will sit at a particular spot on a billiard table for an exceedingly long time, at least until it, or the table, proceeds to decay. When that time is reached, the materials holding the composite of the billiard ball together loosen their grip, generally due to aging or unicellular agents eating away at it. In both cases, another thing is causing the motion of the disintegration of the old billiard ball. It is not moving itself.

Now, let’s consider beings that can move themselves, like dogs, cats and people. These are different from the exigencies that were initially considered. But, like the first exigencies, there are essential similarities. In fact, they are more than just “similarities,” They are constituent parts that act very much faster. A cat is an animal that consists of parts inside of parts. For example, it has legs. Each of these legs consists of muscles, sinews and bones. Yet they don’t move themselves either, or the entire study of animal biology would be out the window. Briefly, the cat decides to move, or moves by reaction to a stimulus. If it decides to move, it has rudimentary or instinctual thoughts, or it reacts to an attacking dog. That starts in the cat’s brain, so there are still exigencies that begin the process. The cat eats food, which digests and converts to usable energy. There’s the process of eating and digesting. There’s the DNA that caused the cat’s design to be one way and not another. There’s the food itself. There are the parents of the cat. There’s no reason to stop there. We can go as far back as someone wants to take it. But, at some point, there will be a first mover. We can see, if we but think about it, that nothing moves itself; that all things moved are moved by something else. What is more, that thing did not move itself - it was moved, and so on.

But, this cannot go back into some nebulous, infinite past. First, because there’s no such thing as an actual infinity. In as much as a number line is actual, it will forever be finite. Why? Because at any point on that time line, another second, or another minute, or another hour, or another day, can be added, or, if we want, subtracted.

On the other hand, God is Eternal. Eternality has nothing to do with motion or time, which manifest as segments. Eternal is all and at once. What does that mean? We can ferret out its meaning from a via negativa consideration. Unless we manipulate the meaning of Eternal (and the meaning of Infinite, as well) we can say that there is nothing which we can compare to it that will help us discern what it is. We can say that, “It is not segmented.” We can say that, “It has no beginning or any end.” We can say that, “It has no temporal counterpart.” We can say that, “There is nothing with which to compare it.” It can only be “all and at once.” And this is what mankind has said about “eternty” since the time of Aristotle, if not before. I.e., it is interminable (no termination on either side), and it can have no succession. Thereforefore, it is a simultaneous whole.

I contend that any distortion of this is a distortion such that it alters the true meaning of the word into a form of nonsense. It can only be affirmed or denied, but a distortion of its meaning results in gibberish.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Time is the measure of motion. This requires that mobile being exists. Further, it requires that other things coexist, in the universe, with any such mobile being. If I, for example, was the only being in the universe, how would I know that I moved? Where would I move to? Away from what? Toward what? Time, therefore, is like a meter stick (of great length), segmented into days, hours, and minutes (or whatever other names I would like to give them), like those of a standard clock. Therefore, until a multiplicity of beings exist (at a bare minimum, two) there would be no time. There would be nothing to measure.

On the contrary, only one material being would need to exist. In that case time began when God created it, He " moved " it through an influx of His power from its potential existence in His eternal to its actual existence in time. If you were that being, God is moving every thing you do, He is moving every molecule, every atom and electron in you.

Aquinas has written that there are Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God. The First Way, is the proof from motion. Essentially, Aquinas says that nothing is moved unless it is moved by another being. This is absolutely true. There are two kinds of beings in the universe: beings that can move themselves (in a special way) and beings that are stationary, unless induced to move by some other thing. That said, one might think that I am now denying my earlier premise. But, I am not.

On the contrary. You have changed your argument to multiple beings. Same answer.

Considering the latter being first, the stationary being, we can easily see that it does not move itself. A billiard ball will sit at a particular spot on a billiard table for an exceedingly long time, at least until it, or the table, proceeds to decay. When that time is reached, the materials holding the composite of the billiard ball together loosen their grip, generally due to aging or unicellular agents eating away at it. In both cases, another thing is causing the motion of the disintegration of the old billiard ball. It is not moving itself.

On the contrary. Decay is motion ( for Thomas substantial change is type of motion), and while it is a natural motion, who is moving the molecules, atoms, electrons, etc? The Unmoved First Mover, who Thomas identifies as the Christian God.

Now, let’s consider beings that can move themselves, like dogs, cats and people. These are different from the exigencies that were initially considered. But, like the first exigencies, there are essential similarities. In fact, they are more than just “similarities,” They are constituent parts that act very much faster. A cat is an animal that consists of parts inside of parts. For example, it has legs. Each of these legs consists of muscles, sinews and bones. Yet they don’t move themselves either, or the entire study of animal biology would be out the window. Briefly, the cat decides to move, or moves by reaction to a stimulus. If it decides to move, it has rudimentary or instinctual thoughts, or it reacts to an attacking dog. That starts in the cat’s brain, so there are still exigencies that begin the process. The cat eats food, which digests and converts to usable energy. There’s the process of eating and digesting. There’s the DNA that caused the cat’s design to be one way and not another. There’s the food itself. There are the parents of the cat. There’s no reason to stop there. We can go as far back as someone wants to take it. But, at some point, there will be a first mover. We can see, if we but think about it, that nothing moves itself; that all things moved are moved by something else. What is more, that thing did not move itself - it was moved, and so on.

On the contrary. You are getting pretty involved. Animal decides to move, muscles move, constituent parts move according to direction of the instinct in the brain, all these motions are supported by the heart, nerves, blood, etc, which are supported by the coordinated movement of molecules, atoms, electrons, etc. These are all instramental movers acting Here and Now and simultaneously wich ultimately require a First Mover Itself Unmoved moving all Here and Now simultaneously, which Thomas identifies as God.

Sam with

But, this cannot go back into some nebulous, infinite past. First, because there’s no such thing as an actual infinity. In as much as a number line is actual, it will forever be finite. Why? Because at any point on that time line, another second, or another minute, or another hour, or another day, can be added, or, if we want, subtracted.

On the contrary. Only in the case of the Mother cat and kittens are we dealing with an infinite line of movers and moved. And in that case the Mother’s Mother doesn’t count, she is dead ( we will assume just to shorten the presentation). The First Unmoved Mover is moving the mother Here and Now and moving all her natural processes and actions to create the kittens.

On the other hand, God is Eternal. Eternality has nothing to do with motion or time, which manifest as segments. Eternal is all and at once. What does that mean? We can ferret out its meaning from a via negativa consideration. Unless we manipulate the meaning of Eternal (and the meaning of Infinite, as well) we can say that there is nothing which we can compare to it that will help us discern what it is. We can say that, “It is not segmented.” We can say that, “It has no beginning or any end.” We can say that, “It has no temporal counterpart.” We can say that, “There is nothing with which to compare it.” It can only be “all and at once.” And this is what mankind has said about “eternty” since the time of Aristotle, if not before. I.e., it is interminable (no termination on either side), and it can have no succession. Thereforefore, it is a simultaneous whole.

On the contrary. Time is a potential idea in the eternal now of God. Because He is Good he created limited beings in time. You need to get a good book on Thomistic Philosophy. I would suggest Aquinas by Edward Feser and The Last Superstition by the same author. The paper back editions are $17 and $14 respectively. Or you can read A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy by Cardinal Mercier Vols 1 & 2 here.
archive.org/details/amanualofmoderns01mercuoft
archive.org/details/manualofmodernsc02merc

I contend that any distortion of this is a distortion such that it alters the true meaning of the word into a form of nonsense. It can only be affirmed or denied, but a distortion of its meaning results in gibberish.

On the contrary. Not gibberish at all. :tiphat:

God bless,
jd

 

[Touchstone]

Time is the measure of motion. This requires that mobile being exists. Further, it requires that other things coexist, in the universe, with any such mobile being. If I, for example, was the only being in the universe, how would I know that I moved? Where would I move to? Away from what? Toward what? Time, therefore, is like a meter stick (of great length), segmented into days, hours, and minutes (or whatever other names I would like to give them), like those of a standard clock. Therefore, until a multiplicity of beings exist (at a bare minimum, two) there would be no time. There would be nothing to measure.

This is not a sustainable view of time in light of modern physics. I think there’s some pedagogical value in what you are saying as an intro to the topic, for say, children, but this kind of “common sense” approach to physics falls into a ditch quickly. For example, if you were the only being in some universe like ours, but with only you in it, time would obtain. In our unvierse, time is intrinsically linked to extended space, and motion within it, even if there was, to be even more hardcore than your example, just a single electron in the whole universe, time would be what it is, what it is in our our more populated universe. To go an extra step, even, if there was not even a single electron, and nothing but space-time itself, time obtains, based on our scientific knowledge, and the “void” of space-time jitters in such a way that virtual particles pop into and out of existence.

This is a good teaching subject for the problem of confusing the map for the territory. Change and motion are important concepts for how humans conceptualize time, but these are human accommodations in their mental models. Nature is what it is, apart from how we think about it.

Aquinas has written that there are Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God. The First Way, is the proof from motion. Essentially, Aquinas says that nothing is moved unless it is moved by another being. This is absolutely true. There are two kinds of beings in the universe: beings that can move themselves (in a special way) and beings that are stationary, unless induced to move by some other thing. That said, one might think that I am now denying my earlier premise. But, I am not.

Well, it does seem that you are confusing the modern, physics-based concept of “motion” (and “stationary”), with Aquinas/Aristotle’s definition of the term, which was something I might summarize as “transit from potency to actuality”. That’s a confounding factor, here, because it has you equivocating all over the place on ‘motion’, if you are invoking Aquinas. We can find objects, for instance, that we would say are “not in motion”, in our local reference frame; a rock outcropping we might find on the side of a hill seems pretty “fixed”. But of course that rock outcropping, with you standing on it, is whirling at breakneck speed with angular momentum as the earth spins on its axis. And the earth, in turn, is orbiting around the sun. And so.

There are no ‘stationary’ objects, using that sense of motion. But Aquinas meant something broader, more fundamental by ‘motion’, the change from potency to actuality. From acorn to oak tree is motion, for Aquinas, apart from any movement of its branches or swaying of its trunk in the wind.

Considering the latter being first, the stationary being, we can easily see that it does not move itself.

But everything moves itself, at fundamental scales. This is what Aquinas and Aristotle did not and could not know, being products of a more barbaric and primitive age. Literally every particle of the universe is in motion, a bundle of motion. A hydrogen atom “moves itself”, the electron in its orbital, and the atom itself moves with the kinetic energy that in large ensembles of other atoms we call “heat”.

Everything, literally everything, is in motion, under its own powers, “moving itself” in this universe. A “stationary rock” is just a crude macro-scale assessment of a large amount matter that doesn’t move detectably far in our local reference frame. But at a fundamental, the level Aquinas and Aristotle were totally clueless about, it’s all “moving itself”.

A billiard ball will sit at a particular spot on a billiard table for an exceedingly long time, at least until it, or the table, proceeds to decay.

See above. Any billiard ball you find is a raging dynamo of motion, a seething bundle of kinetic energy, no matter how “still” it looks to you on the table. That is just a naïve and crude view of what is really happening, physically, “stationary”. The particles it is made of are just not moving together as a unit in human-detectable velocities and distances (in that reference frame). But it’s all matter in constant self-motion.

When that time is reached, the materials holding the composite of the billiard ball together loosen their grip, generally due to aging or unicellular agents eating away at it. In both cases, another thing is causing the motion of the disintegration of the old billiard ball. It is not moving itself.

Wrong. Totally, utterly wrong. See above.

Now, let’s consider beings that can move themselves, like dogs, cats and people. These are different from the exigencies that were initially considered. But, like the first exigencies, there are essential similarities. In fact, they are more than just “similarities,” They are constituent parts that act very much faster. A cat is an animal that consists of parts inside of parts. For example, it has legs. Each of these legs consists of muscles, sinews and bones. Yet they don’t move themselves either, or the entire study of animal biology would be out the window. Briefly, the cat decides to move, or moves by reaction to a stimulus. If it decides to move, it has rudimentary or instinctual thoughts, or it reacts to an attacking dog. That starts in the cat’s brain, so there are still exigencies that begin the process. The cat eats food, which digests and converts to usable energy. There’s the process of eating and digesting. There’s the DNA that caused the cat’s design to be one way and not another. There’s the food itself. There are the parents of the cat. There’s no reason to stop there. We can go as far back as someone wants to take it. But, at some point, there will be a first mover. We can see, if we but think about it, that nothing moves itself; that all things moved are moved by something else. What is more, that thing did not move itself - it was moved, and so on.

Maybe we should just use lower case – first mover. As a fundamental dynamic in physics, a brute fact, with no personality or mind detectable or needed from it, matter is motion. Matter, save for at absolute zero, a context we are not aware of being actual or practically achievable, is energetic, and motive. It’s inherently “self-moving”. The most fundamental particles are “self-moving”, all of them, all of the stuff that makes up everything in the world.

But, this cannot go back into some nebulous, infinite past.

It may not, just as a matter of describing logical possibilities. But we have no basis for saying it “cannot”. For all we can tell, it can, and may.

First, because there’s no such thing as an actual infinity.

How would you know this. Again, it cannot be ruled out as a logical possibility, and we have no basis to conclude it’s either impossible or not an actual fact. We just do not know.

In as much as a number line is actual, it will forever be finite. Why? Because at any point on that time line, another second, or another minute, or another hour, or another day, can be added, or, if we want, subtracted.

That does not have any bearing on infinity. Come on, this is basic math and logic. Remember Peano arithmetic? Infinity is a concept, related to numbers, but it’s not a number.

On the other hand, God is Eternal. Eternality has nothing to do with motion or time, which manifest as segments. Eternal is all and at once. What does that mean? We can ferret out its meaning from a via negativa consideration. Unless we manipulate the meaning of Eternal (and the meaning of Infinite, as well) we can say that there is nothing which we can compare to it that will help us discern what it is. We can say that, “It is not segmented.” We can say that, “It has no beginning or any end.” We can say that, “It has no temporal counterpart.” We can say that, “There is nothing with which to compare it.” It can only be “all and at once.” And this is what mankind has said about “eternty” since the time of Aristotle, if not before. I.e., it is interminable (no termination on either side), and it can have no succession. Thereforefore, it is a simultaneous whole.

Can you do math with this concept?

I contend that any distortion of this is a distortion such that it alters the true meaning of the word into a form of nonsense. It can only be affirmed or denied, but a distortion of its meaning results in gibberish.

God bless,
jd

Words mean whatever we agree they should mean. The utility of any definition obtains in its application. The concepts of time and space and cardinality in physics have demonstrable utility in their application. I don’t think the same thing can be said for your concepts of ‘time’, ‘infinity’, or ‘eternal’, here.

-TS

 

[JDaniel]

This is not a sustainable view of time in light of modern physics. I think there’s some pedagogical value in what you are saying as an intro to the topic, for say, children, but this kind of “common sense” approach to physics falls into a ditch quickly. For example, if you were the only being in some universe like ours, but with only you in it, time would obtain.

Hello, Touchstone:

Obviously, my example is an idealistic example. Even if I were in the universe alone, I would be here with a half-trillion other entities. The individual cells of my body; the unicellular critters that also inhabit it; and what about food and food stuff? Of course it’s idealized. And, in that sense, time would obtain. Why, because there would be a multiplicity of moving things.

In our unvierse, time is intrinsically linked to extended space, and motion within it,

Of course, there must be space wherein motion can take place. But, I’m not sure I’d use the word “intrinsically.”

even if there was, to be even more hardcore than your example, just a single electron in the whole universe, time would be what it is, what it is in our our more populated universe.

I disagree. Consider the initial singularity. So far, I have not read anyone that postulates that Time was present with it. Time became present with its expansion phase. Time is correlative with motion; no motion, no time. One could say, motion is intrinsic with time. But a single point particle even in extended space could only have theoretical motion. Of course, it could bounce off of the edge of the universe wall, then we’d know it was moving. But, that’s an example of another thing.

To go an extra step, even, if there was not even a single electron, and nothing but space-time itself, time obtains, based on our scientific knowledge, and the “void” of space-time jitters in such a way that virtual particles pop into and out of existence.

But, that’s not the electron alone out there. That’s additional things. I really dislike that phrase, “pops in and out of existence.” That’s nothing more than man’s putting a name to a phenomenon that not, and will probably never be, understood. Nevertheless, the instability of existing point particles, interacting with each other, repelling each other, etc., is an alternative to this “popping” hypothesis.

This is a good teaching subject for the problem of confusing the map for the territory. Change and motion are important concepts for how humans conceptualize time, but these are human accommodations in their mental models. Nature is what it is, apart from how we think about it.

Yes it is.

Well, it does seem that you are confusing the modern, physics-based concept of “motion” (and “stationary”), with Aquinas/Aristotle’s definition of the term, which was something I might summarize as “transit from potency to actuality”.

But that would be wrong. Concentrate less on the words, which are our human names for the parts of motion. Concentrate more on a single, simple motion. Roll a billiard ball one foot. At the beginning, the ball is stationary - which has nothing really to do with motion, except as a reference point for the beginning of it. Then, look a foot away, at where the ball comes to rest. Again, the point of rest is not part of motion. The motion is taking place between those two hash-marks, a foot apart.

Now, we can easily say, well, “The ball is rolling along on its trajectory.” But we might as well have said, “The ball is moving along on its trajectory.” As we’ve discussed before, that is a meaningless tautology to the sightless.

That’s a confounding factor, here, because it has you equivocating all over the place on ‘motion’, if you are invoking Aquinas. We can find objects, for instance, that we would say are “not in motion”, in our local reference frame; a rock outcropping we might find on the side of a hill seems pretty “fixed”. But of course that rock outcropping, with you standing on it, is whirling at breakneck speed with angular momentum as the earth spins on its axis. And the earth, in turn, is orbiting around the sun. And so.

Of course. Once again, motion in relation to other things. It doesn’t matter that the earth is turning, that’s just one more relative motion.

There are no ‘stationary’ objects, using that sense of motion.

As I said, do not concentrate on “stationary.” We are in a universe of continuous, relative motion. That does not change what motion is, nor does it alter a good, non-tautological definition of it. Everything we perceive, everything we discern, everything we name, everything we define is going to be a reduction from the universal to the particular. Every one of them will only be a “model.” In St. Thomas’ model, he uses the words we use to describe the beginning and the end of the motion, to define “motion.” We see three things, unless we divide the movement part into smaller portions. But that’s problematic as we are still using our naming conventions and our presuppositions.

At the start, we see “no movement” (the object is said to be in potency to move and in potency to be actualized in some other place). We see the ending place, at which the object comes to rest. St. Thomas calls this “act,” or the point of then current actualization. In the middle (the third thing we see) we see the motion. The question is, shall we define it by saying ‘motion’ is ‘motion’? Or, shall we define it in model form, by saying that it is “the act of the potential (precisely) as potential?” What does that say? Well, it says that the moving object is, moment by moment, in act yet still in potency to be in yet another “place of actualization.” I really don’t see a definition any better. Think of it as a verbal model. That’s what it is.

But Aquinas meant something broader, more fundamental by ‘motion’, the change from potency to actuality. From acorn to oak tree is motion, for Aquinas, apart from any movement of its branches or swaying of its trunk in the wind.

Yes, that too. Really, if you think about it, the growth of an embryo to a man is a form of “motion,” no less, or more, than the rolling billiard ball. But, all things are part of a larger, continuously moving mega-continuum, with no permanent stops. “Stops” might occur, and they might persist for eons, but that does not mean they are permanent.

But everything moves itself, at fundamental scales.

This is what Aquinas and Aristotle did not and could not know, being products of a more barbaric and primitive age.

Yeah, the idiots!

Literally every particle of the universe is in motion, a bundle of motion. A hydrogen atom “moves itself”, the electron in its orbital, and the atom itself moves with the kinetic energy that in large ensembles of other atoms we call “heat”.

A hydrogen atom has parts inside parts. It consists, no less than a mouse, of parts that provided with energy, are capable of self-movement. A positive proton and a negative electron. And, the electron is always looking out for something with which to complete its circuit, so to speak. The oxygen atom just happens to have a valence that is conducive to the hydrogen atom - if it brings a date - for completion of its circuit. (Obviously, I’m being very remedial here, so, no need to break my chops again. )

Consider the diamond (not the carbon atoms within one). At a 10 on the MOHS, it is probably the only thing on earth that approximates an immobile thing. but, we mere humans (outside of the physics lab) make models, that serve us, all the time. They represent such things as ‘stationary’, ‘motion’, and ‘actualization’.

Everything, literally everything, is in motion, under its own powers, “moving itself” in this universe. A “stationary rock” is just a crude macro-scale assessment of a large amount matter that doesn’t move detectably far in our local reference frame. But at a fundamental, the level Aquinas and Aristotle were totally clueless about, it’s all “moving itself”.

Parts inside of parts. Just like muscles, bones, sinews, nerves, blood, interstitial fluids, bugs, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, nutrients, charges, etc., etc., etc. Of course it is. This was not misunderstood by Aquinas and Aristotle. Remember the Atomists? But, Aquinas and Aristotle relied upon stable data to construct their models. The only thing they didn’t know, was that all of this is more or less illusory. - nothing more than a boggling hologram.

See above. Any billiard ball you find is a raging dynamo of motion, a seething bundle of kinetic energy, no matter how “still” it looks to you on the table. That is just a naïve and crude view of what is really happening, physically, “stationary”. The particles it is made of are just not moving together as a unit in human-detectable velocities and distances (in that reference frame). But it’s all matter in constant self-motion.

See above.

Wrong. Totally, utterly wrong. See above.

See above.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

Maybe we should just use lower case – first mover. As a fundamental dynamic in physics, a brute fact, with no personality or mind detectable or needed from it, matter is motion.

As you know, I do not believe in “brute fact.” To me, that is the statement of an exasperated person, one who has not the will nor the energy to dissect the event.

Matter, save for at absolute zero, a context we are not aware of being actual or practically achievable, is energetic, and motive. It’s inherently “self-moving”. The most fundamental particles are “self-moving”, all of them, all of the stuff that makes up everything in the world.

See above.

That does not have any bearing on infinity. Come on, this is basic math and logic. Remember Peano arithmetic? Infinity is a concept, related to numbers, but it’s not a number.

Yes. I’ve said that in these fora perhaps before anyone else.

Words mean whatever we agree they should mean.

Actually, they mean whatever I want them to mean - at least for many.

The utility of any definition obtains in its application. The concepts of time and space and cardinality in physics have demonstrable utility in their application. I don’t think the same thing can be said for your concepts of ‘time’, ‘infinity’, or ‘eternal’, here.

Does that bother me? Not in the least. Even in physics, meanings are distorted.

God bless,
and good to hear from you!
jd

 

[Actaeon]

Time is the measure of motion. This requires that mobile being exists. Further, it requires that other things coexist, in the universe, with any such mobile being. If I, for example, was the only being in the universe, how would I know that I moved? Where would I move to? Away from what? Toward what? Time, therefore, is like a meter stick (of great length), segmented into days, hours, and minutes (or whatever other names I would like to give them), like those of a standard clock. Therefore, until a multiplicity of beings exist (at a bare minimum, two) there would be no time. There would be nothing to measure.

Actually, time is not a measure of anything, it is a dimension which exists within this physical universe. The measure of motion is velocity, which is a measure of distance over time.

Velocity can exist in a single being simply by defining a reference frame. We might not be able to assess distance travelled, or even the fact that we’re moving, but if the universe consisted of space with a SINGLE particle moving across it, we would still not say that this particle is stationary, because the very fact that there is space defines the fact that a stable reference frame is possible and therefore we can determine motion.

At the same right, let’s point out that motion might not be observable even with two objects. Let’s suppose a universe which is composed of one half matter, which makes a flat and totally uniform plane. We then put another person just above the surface of this plane, flying along the top of it. That person is definitely in motion, but because the surface of the plane is totally uniform (aka, no visible markings or changes in any direction), they cannot distinguish that they are moving over the plane at all. Even though THEY can’t determine any reference point to tell if they are moving, we, the outside observer, can still define the reference frame and determine that they are in motion.

All that is to say that our understanding of motion and time can only make sense in terms of this universe, because it is the only one in which we understand how to create a reference frame for. While God exists outside of time, that doesn’t mean that He is motionless… it just means that we, as limited and finite beings, have no conception and therefore no way of measuring that motion.

Aquinas has written that there are Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God. The First Way, is the proof from motion. Essentially, Aquinas says that nothing is moved unless it is moved by another being. This is absolutely true. There are two kinds of beings in the universe: beings that can move themselves (in a special way) and beings that are stationary, unless induced to move by some other thing. That said, one might think that I am now denying my earlier premise. But, I am not.

SNIP
But, this cannot go back into some nebulous, infinite past. First, because there’s no such thing as an actual infinity. In as much as a number line is actual, it will forever be finite. Why? Because at any point on that time line, another second, or another minute, or another hour, or another day, can be added, or, if we want, subtracted.

Aquinas was certainly not arguing that the universe itself is finite with his argument from motion. In fact, his argument from motion is one of the few which would actually ALLOW for an infinite duration universe. What he IS arguing for is that there has to be an independent mover… and that’s all he’s arguing for.

Let’s look at it in terms of the maths: I roll 100 pairs of dice. If I look at one of the dice, there is a slight chance that it will roll a six whenever I roll it. (for this analogy, let’s consider rolling a six to be an object which is at rest). The odds are small, but at some point in rolling the 100 dice, all of them are going to roll out to be sixes (ALL the objects at rest). In fact, in this case, I can even calculate the odds of it happening and determine the number of rolls it would take: (6.533186x10^77 rolls). In fact, this same fact holds true no matter how many dice I add… even with billions of dice being rolled an infinite number of times, EVENTUALLY there will come a time when ALL of the dice will roll a six (be an object at rest).

So what Aquinas IS saying is that even in an infinite universe, if all objects have the possibility of being at rest at any given time, then at SOME time, all objects were at rest. Because it is an observed phsyical property that any object at rest MUST be acted upon in order to move, then it follows that AT THAT TIME, some external object must have acted to set everything into motion the way we see it today.

In otherwords, the argument from motion is exactly the opposite of what you have said here: it’s genius is in the fact that it is an argument for God DESPITE the idea that there might have been an infinite duration universe (in fact, the idea of an infinite duration universe actually makes this argument STRONGER because it allows for more “dice” rolls).

On the other hand, God is Eternal. Eternality has nothing to do with motion or time, which manifest as segments. Eternal is all and at once. What does that mean? We can ferret out its meaning from a via negativa consideration. Unless we manipulate the meaning of Eternal (and the meaning of Infinite, as well) we can say that there is nothing which we can compare to it that will help us discern what it is. We can say that, “It is not segmented.” We can say that, “It has no beginning or any end.” We can say that, “It has no temporal counterpart.” We can say that, “There is nothing with which to compare it.” It can only be “all and at once.” And this is what mankind has said about “eternty” since the time of Aristotle, if not before. I.e., it is interminable (no termination on either side), and it can have no succession. Thereforefore, it is a simultaneous whole.

No disagreement here!

 

[JDaniel]

Actually, time is not a measure of anything, it is a dimension which exists within this physical universe. The measure of motion is velocity, which is a measure of distance over time.

Actaeon:

Uh oh! Allow me to be remedial. Time is the measure of motion and mobile being. Time does not and cannot exist in the absence of some kind of motion and mobile being. It is not real, it is an abstraction a human being makes about something by virtue of a motion’s before and after, i.e., its “sequentiality.” It is nothing more than a correlate of motion. In the absence of motion and mobile being there can be no time. God is Infinite and, therefore, Immobile. There is no “time” for God. Time came about simultaneously with the beginning of the universe (including any postulated multiverse). Velocity is merely a one-step further mathematical abstraction that we make from the time differences between different before’s and after’s of motion.

Velocity can exist in a single being simply by defining a reference frame.

If you were all alone in a vacuum universe, let’s say of infinite (whatever that means) dimension, how would you define a reference frame? What would be your referents?

We might not be able to assess distance traveled, or even the fact that we’re moving, but if the universe consisted of space with a SINGLE particle moving across it, we would still not say that this particle is stationary, because the very fact that there is space defines the fact that a stable reference frame is possible and therefore we can determine motion.

Quite true: WE wouldn’t say that. But, the particle certainly might.

At the same right, let’s point out that motion might not be observable even with two objects. Let’s suppose a universe which is composed of one half matter, which makes a flat and totally uniform plane. We then put another person just above the surface of this plane, flying along the top of it. That person is definitely in motion, but because the surface of the plane is totally uniform (aka, no visible markings or changes in any direction), they cannot distinguish that they are moving over the plane at all. Even though THEY can’t determine any reference point to tell if they are moving, we, the outside observer, can still define the reference frame and determine that they are in motion.

Correct, as observers, we could.

All that is to say that our understanding of motion and time can only make sense in terms of this universe, because it is the only one in which we understand how to create a reference frame for. While God exists outside of time, that doesn’t mean that He is motionless… it just means that we, as limited and finite beings, have no conception and therefore no way of measuring that motion.

If God is not motionless, then he is mutable, which violates a direct teaching of the Catholic Church.

Aquinas was certainly not arguing that the universe itself is finite with his argument from motion. In fact, his argument from motion is one of the few which would actually ALLOW for an infinite duration universe. What he IS arguing for is that there has to be an independent mover… and that’s all he’s arguing for.

Aquinas says, “I answer that, All the ancient philosophers attribute infinity to the first principle, as is said in the Physics (Aristotle, III, 4 (203 a 1) and “with this reason” (Aristotle, Ibid 203 b 4), for they considered that things flow forth infinitely from the first principle. But because some erred concerning the nature of the first principle, as a consequence they erred also concerning its infinity. For as they asserted that matter was the first principle (Metaphysics, I, 3, where Aristotle names Thales, Anaximines, Heraclitus, etc.), consequently they attributed to the first principle a material infinity, to the effect that some infinite body was the first principle of things…” (Summa, I, Q. VII, Art. 1)

It is important to have read a great deal of Aquinas, not just particular excerpts. Aquinas would not have called the First Mover the First, or Prime, Mover if all he was arguing for was an “independent” mover. Do you see that?

Let’s look at it in terms of the maths: I roll 100 pairs of dice. If I look at one of the dice, there is a slight chance that it will roll a six whenever I roll it. (for this analogy, let’s consider rolling a six to be an object which is at rest). The odds are small, but at some point in rolling the 100 dice, all of them are going to roll out to be sixes (ALL the objects at rest). In fact, in this case, I can even calculate the odds of it happening and determine the number of rolls it would take: (6.533186x10^77 rolls). In fact, this same fact holds true no matter how many dice I add… even with billions of dice being rolled an infinite number of times, EVENTUALLY there will come a time when ALL of the dice will roll a six (be an object at rest).

So what Aquinas IS saying is that even in an infinite universe, if all objects have the possibility of being at rest at any given time, then at SOME time, all objects were at rest. Because it is an observed physical property that any object at rest MUST be acted upon in order to move, then it follows that AT THAT TIME, some external object must have acted to set everything into motion the way we see it today.

Actually, he is not saying that. He further says that ALL objects must be acted upon to be in motion. In fact, at another point, he says that if at any time all object were to be simultaneously at rest, motion would never re-start. (God, I suppose could decide to do so, at some point.)

In other words, the argument from motion is exactly the opposite of what you have said here: it’s genius is in the fact that it is an argument for God DESPITE the idea that there might have been an infinite duration universe (in fact, the idea of an infinite duration universe actually makes this argument STRONGER because it allows for more “dice” rolls).

Again, it’s easy to misunderstand Aquinas if you know too little. Aquinas seems to have left the question of “infinity” open-ended. But, he did it for reasons. In his Commentary on the Physics, Bk. III, les. 1, n. 543, he points out that if it happens to turn out that motion involves the infinite, it will be unnecessary to inquire about the so-called extrinsic measures of motion, namely space and time; for what is infinite will not be capable of measure. That doesn’t sound to me like he is postulating an “infinite universe.”

No disagreement here!

Likewise.

God bless,
jd

 

[Actaeon]

Uh oh! Allow me to be remedial.

Having my degree in physics, I will not allow you that indulgence.

Time is the measure of motion and mobile being. Time does not and cannot exist in the absence of some kind of motion and mobile being. It is not real, it is an abstraction a human being makes about something by virtue of a motion’s before and after, i.e., its “sequentiality.” It is nothing more than a correlate of motion. In the absence of motion and mobile being there can be no time. God is Infinite and, therefore, Immobile. There is no “time” for God. Time came about simultaneously with the beginning of the universe (including any postulated multiverse). Velocity is merely a one-step further mathematical abstraction that we make from the time differences between different before’s and after’s of motion.

Again, your confusion lies in your conflation of time as a measurement and the fact that time is a dimension of which we take measurements. What we measure (seconds, minutes, hours) is NOT what composes time itself, but rather a human perception of an independently existing dimension.

Again, motion (particularly velocity, of which you are describing) is a measure of distance over time, not just time. Even wikipedia gets it right that motion is a measurement based on time and another dimensional aspect (length, width, or height).

Again, time would pass, even if there were no measurement with which to guage its passage. There simply wouldn’t be a measurement of that time.

If you were all alone in a vacuum universe, let’s say of infinite (whatever that means) dimension, how would you define a reference frame? What would be your referents?

A reference frame is a subjective definition. If a refrence frame were to be defined as moving along with me, we have a relativity issue (aka, I’m motionless RELATIVE TO my reference frame).

What you’re arguing is that without two different items, one of which is a perceptual being, we can’t guage a reference frame… and perhaps that is true… but it does not deny the FACT that motion could still occur regardless of our awareness of it.

Correct, as observers, we could.

Yes, and I don’t think it’s possible to posit a universe where there is no observer who can perceive it (aka, God).

If God is not motionless, then he is mutable, which violates a direct teaching of the Catholic Church.

If God is not motionless AS WE UNDERSTAND MOTION, you mean to say. Because if God is truly without any sort of motion or change, then He is utterly unresponsive to anything that we do… if that is the case, then all your prayers are useless drivel, because God could not react to them… all your sacred rites? Useless drivel, because God’s grace would not react to it.

Reaction is the relationship between God and man… to say that God is utterly motionless and unreactive is ALSO against church teaching, and is more in line with calvinism and predestination than Catholic thought.

Aquinas says, “I answer that, All the ancient philosophers attribute infinity to the first principle, as is said in the Physics (Aristotle, III, 4 (203 a 1) and “with this reason” (Aristotle, Ibid 203 b 4), for they considered that things flow forth infinitely from the first principle. But because some erred concerning the nature of the first principle, as a consequence they erred also concerning its infinity. For as they asserted that matter was the first principle (Metaphysics, I, 3, where Aristotle names Thales, Anaximines, Heraclitus, etc.), consequently they attributed to the first principle a material infinity, to the effect that some infinite body was the first principle of things…” (Summa, I, Q. VII, Art. 1)

It is important to have read a great deal of Aquinas, not just particular excerpts. Aquinas would not have called the First Mover the First, or Prime, Mover if all he was arguing for was an “independent” mover. Do you see that?

First, you’re not the only person who’s read Aquinas or studied up on a bit of philosophy. I took every course that my CATHOLIC university offered in religious philosophy (yay for electives) and that involved quite a bit of analysis on all of the arguments for God. I’ve also read quite a bit of Aquinas, so your uncharitable assertion that I took the lazy man’s route and have only read a few excerpts of religious philosophy are bunk.

I never said that Aquinas’ argument was that the universe was infinite, what I said was that what makes the argument from motion different is the fact that it does not rely on a finite universe… it applies equally to the infinite AND the finite universe (and even moreso to the infinite universe).

Do you understand that if everything in the universe had always existed, but we could find a time when NOTHING moved, that before that point NOTHING WOULD EVER HAVE MOVED?

In other words, even in a finite universe, the independent being who would set things in motion from that point would STILL be the FIRST mover.

And again I’ll reiterate for clarity: that does not mean that Aquinas supported the idea of an infinite universe… only that in this argument he shows that EVEN IF there is an infinite universe, God can still be proven.

Actually, he is not saying that. He further says that ALL objects must be acted upon to be in motion. In fact, at another point, he says that if at any time all object were to be simultaneously at rest, motion would never re-start. (God, I suppose could decide to do so, at some point.)

Your scope is too limited with that statement. What he’s actually saying is that, if at any time all objects were to be at rest, then there would NEVER have been motion at all before that point. It wouldn’t be a “restart” from that point, it would be the first start.

Again, it’s easy to misunderstand Aquinas if you know too little. Aquinas seems to have left the question of “infinity” open-ended. But, he did it for reasons. In his Commentary on the Physics, Bk. III, les. 1, n. 543, he points out that if it happens to turn out that motion involves the infinite, it will be unnecessary to inquire about the so-called extrinsic measures of motion, namely space and time; for what is infinite will not be capable of measure. That doesn’t sound to me like he is postulating an “infinite universe.”

I assure you that I don’t “know too little”. And I reiterate that, as a Catholic, Aquinas never advocated for the heresy of an infinite universe, nor that he was stupid enough to do so. I merely pointed out that the argument from motion is utterly devoid of dependence on a finite universe. Don’t put words in my mouth and assume that just because some of Aquinas’ arguments don’t rely upon a finite universe that I think that Aquinas was a proponent of an infinite universe. A good philosopher would tell you that those are two very different statements.

The catholic church has KNOWN, since it’s inception, that the universe was finite. The jews knew it for thousands of years before that. It’s a matter of divine revelation. That still doesn’t mean that ALL arguments for God have to be based in the idea that the universe is finite… some work equally well whether or not that doctrine was proven to be true (which, fortunately, it WAS proven in the last hundred years)

 

[JDaniel]

Having my degree in physics, I will not allow you that indulgence.

I, too, have a degree from a fully accredited university, but I try not to make a big deal of it – so as not to sound too arrogant. Anyway, I was joking, in case you didn’t know.

Again, your confusion lies in your conflation of time as a measurement and the fact that time is a dimension of which we take measurements. What we measure (seconds, minutes, hours) is NOT what composes time itself, but rather a human perception of an independently existing dimension.

But, ‘dimension’. Now I am confused. Is “time” spatial? Does it really take time to travel into the past, or would it happen instantly? Very confusing it is indeed. Why? I suppose because we use words like “traveled into the future” and “traveled into the past.” So, I guess while I’m traveling into the future now, I am consuming my time even though time is ticking by in that other dimension ? Then the question will be, “Where will I be when I have reached my destination?” Here, at my desk? Or, in some other location? Or, will I just disappear?

Again, motion (particularly velocity, of which you are describing) is a measure of distance over time, not just time.

But, I didn’t ask for a measure of velocity. If I had, I would have stated that up front. Unless, of course, I wanted to use some other standard for time. E.g., say I had no access to the internet, how would I know that my timepiece is accurate? What if I lived at the North Pole. I couldn’t tell from the position of the sun. Perhaps I could use my regular wakings and goings to sleep each day. Now, if I were to set my watch each day by my wakings and goings to sleep, how accurate would my velocity measurements be?

But, let’s say that I am absolutely sure of the distance, which should be easy enough to do. I could use a yard stick and by successively laying it down and flopping it over to the segment of ground ahead of me, well, I could keep track of my floppings, tally them up and determine that my distance is one mile, for example. So, it should be easy to determine distance over time now. Uh oh. But, I I’m still unsure whether my timepiece is accurate. And if it is not, then my velocity measurements will not be accurate.

Let’s hypothesize that I am observing an astronaut on the moon. Let’s say that he is walking from his space craft to some distant locations around the craft. But, it is vitally important that he return to his space craft before the sun gets shielded by the earth, as the moon passes to its other side. Now, as I am observing him, I have noticed that by triangulation I can determine his relative distance from his craft, but, it is taking longer for him to return to it for some reason. With some trepidation I peer into my telescope to verify my distance parameters, and they all appear to be fine. In my observation room there are several clocks. Each was set earlier and each is showing identical times. But, my astronaut is not going to make it back in time and will freeze to death.

Where am I left? What am I to make of this? How could my team and I have gotten it so wrong? I warned my astronaut to keep track of the time, too. Nevertheless, he is about to die – and there’s nothing I can do from here to help him.

Even wikipedia gets it right that motion is a measurement based on time and another dimensional aspect (length, width, or height).

So time is a spatial dimension. Well, that explains why it takes time to travel backward in time.

Again, time would pass, even if there were no measurement with which to guage its passage. There simply wouldn’t be a measurement of that time.

How could I prove that? And, secondly, if it’s ‘spatial’, there should be no problem measuring it. There should never be a time when it simply wouldn’t be a measurement of time. I could just whip out my trusty tape measure.

A reference frame is a subjective definition.

Hmm. Then you probably wouldn’t trust my reference frame – if your life had to depend on it, would you?

If a refrence frame were to be defined as moving along with me, we have a relativity issue (aka, I’m motionless RELATIVE TO my reference frame).

But, I’ve been walking and walking and my legs are really, really tired! What gives?

What you’re arguing is that without two different items, one of which is a perceptual being, we can’t guage a reference frame… and perhaps that is true…

Well, sort of. I mean, it does take a perceptive being to ‘get’ it. But, even I understand that “time” is not dependent on a perceptive secondary. C’mon. I’m not that dense.

but it does not deny the FACT that motion could still occur regardless of our awareness of it.

Yes: like when we’re sleeping.

Yes, and I don’t think it’s possible to posit a universe where there is no observer who can perceive it (aka, God).

Sort of the same as what the futurum exactum is indicative of.

If God is not motionless AS WE UNDERSTAND MOTION, you mean to say.

I’m not sure; I don’t know how you UNDERSTAND MOTION. What is your definition of it?

Because if God is truly without any sort of motion or change, then He is utterly unresponsive to anything that we do… if that is the case, then all your prayers are useless drivel, because God could not react to them… all your sacred rites? Useless drivel, because God’s grace would not react to it.

Have you spoken to a Priest about these concerns? See: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=701059

Reaction is the relationship between God and man… to say that God is utterly motionless and unreactive is ALSO against church teaching, and is more in line with calvinism and predestination than Catholic thought.

I’ve never heard that before. And, I’ve always understood that God operates through Divine Providence, not through moment to moment reactions in ‘time’. I believe the Church when she tells me that God is absolutely Immutable. But, that’s just me.

First, you’re not the only person who’s read Aquinas or studied up on a bit of philosophy. I took every course that my CATHOLIC university offered in religious philosophy (yay for electives) and that involved quite a bit of analysis on all of the arguments for God. I’ve also read quite a bit of Aquinas, so your uncharitable assertion that I took the lazy man’s route and have only read a few excerpts of religious philosophy are bunk.

No true assertion can ever be uncharitable. Again you are placing words and intentions in my mouth. Don’t you think that’s uncharitable?

I never said that Aquinas’ argument was that the universe was infinite,

Perhaps not. I don’t remember now.

what I said was that what makes the argument from motion different is the fact that it does not rely on a finite universe… it applies equally to the infinite AND the finite universe (and even moreso to the infinite universe).

An explanation here would be book-length.

Do you understand that if everything in the universe had always existed, but we could find a time when NOTHING moved, that before that point NOTHING WOULD EVER HAVE MOVED?

Don’t you think that places limitations on God? Do you believe that God could not pause all motion, any time he wants and for however long he wants? Especially since he was fully capable of bringing an entire universe into existence – where there was absolutely nothing before? Without utilizing any pre-existing stuff?

In other words, even in a finite universe, the independent being who would set things in motion from that point would STILL be the FIRST mover.

Perhaps. Locate (on the internet) and read Father Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure’s short essay entitled “Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence.”

And again I’ll reiterate for clarity: that does not mean that Aquinas supported the idea of an infinite universe… only that in this argument he shows that EVEN IF there is an infinite universe, God can still be proven.

I accept that, and there was never a time when I didn’t. But, it also does not mean that the First Mover is merely an “independent” mover. That he is, is rationally obvious, for nothing else in, or out, of our Universe is Infinite. God is in continual contact with everything – from the “inside” and from the “outside.”

Your scope is too limited with that statement. What he’s actually saying is that, if at any time all objects were to be at rest, then there would NEVER have been motion at all before that point. It wouldn’t be a “restart” from that point, it would be the first start.

(But, that’s not what he said.) So, he was obfuscating?

I assure you that I don’t “know too little”. And I reiterate that, as a Catholic, Aquinas never advocated for the heresy of an infinite universe, nor that he was stupid enough to do so.

Now it’s my turn to be repetitious: and I never said that he did. I don’t know, perhaps it’s just the way physicists use language.

I merely pointed out that the argument from motion is utterly devoid of dependence on a finite universe.

Why would I argue against that?

Don’t put words in my mouth and assume that just because some of Aquinas’ arguments don’t rely upon a finite universe that I think that Aquinas was a proponent of an infinite universe. A good philosopher would tell you that those are two very different statements.

Sir (I think), it is you that is doing strange things with words. BTW, what do you think his Fourth Way means? That one’s been a major problem for many.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

The catholic church has KNOWN, since it’s inception, that the universe was finite.

They did not know that. To early Catholic churchmen, everything flowed from a first principle, which is different than a First Mover. To these early churchmen, the first principle could have been producing eternally. Remember, creation and causation do not mean the same things.

The jews knew it for thousands of years before that.

Perhaps you could document this for me?

It’s a matter of divine revelation.

And this too?

That still doesn’t mean that ALL arguments for God have to be based in the idea that the universe is finite…

Nor did I say it did.

some work equally well whether or not that doctrine was proven to be true (which, fortunately, it WAS proven in the last hundred years)

And, I have never contended differently. But, I’m glad you said it. You may find lots of contention with it in these fora!

God bless,
jd