J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
I am just trying to follow you. Here is another question: Shouldn’t we distinguish between the measurement and the “thing” being measured?
- Status
A
AlNg
Guest
This is a widely accepted theory, but it is not proven conclusively that time was impossible 14.5 billion years ago. It is a Euclidean axiom, known to high school math pupils, that any line can be extended from its current length.
A
AlNg
Guest
The thing being measured is the lifetime of the anti-electron, which according to the Feynmann scenario, is possibly moving backward in time within the fuzzy planck time period.
My lifetime is measured using the measurement of days, say.
The lifetime of the anti-electron is measured using the fuzzy measurement of planck time.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
J
JamesATyler
Guest
In the bible it says God spoke and then things began to exist. So there was the word. When God began to speak, time began. When God finished his command, creation began. So, if a word takes time to speak then time elapsed since the beginning of time to the beginning of creation= 0 + time taken for the words spoken.
Just a theory.
However, the angels were created when? Before? If so then time must have existed before. Anyone know what the Church teaches as to when the angels were created relative to the universe?
Just a theory.
However, the angels were created when? Before? If so then time must have existed before. Anyone know what the Church teaches as to when the angels were created relative to the universe?
Last edited:
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
So, to measure your lifetime we can use as a reference the periodic phenomenon of the Earth’s rotation. And to measure the lifetime of the anti-electron, physicists use as a reference a periodic phenomenon which has the highest known frequency.
Besides, what you say is that so far it has not been possible to produce a periodic phenomenon of a higher frequency than 10^42 Hz. And that when physicists have tried, instead of getting a higher frequency, they have obtained a lower one. I can see that this can be astonishing and even frustrating, but in what sense is it fuzzy?
Then, to measure a movement or a change (how fast it is) we compare it against another movement or change (which has the peculiarity of being periodic).
Do you want to add or correct something so far?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Which “line” are you talking about?
Time?
You do realize that a timeline is only a metaphor, correct?
I am pretty certain it doesn’t fall under the rules Euclidean geometry.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Good point. That is another reason why saying that time began 13.8 billion years ago is not a certitude.
No, I don’t think of it that way. I see a 1-1 correspondence between the timeline and the real line.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
For the continuous case, it might be useful to look into Zeno’s paradox.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Ah, but that is only because you think of it that way as a way of representing the idea visually. Proves nothing.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
No it isn’t a “good point.” It is like proposing a discussion on how many angels could dance on the head of a pin as a reason for saying angels must take up space, even if very little.JamesATyler:
Good point. That is another reason why saying that time began 13.8 billion years ago is not a certitude.
A
AlNg
Guest
Do angels live in time or are they above time? Is your guardian angel above time or does he live in time?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You want wild speculation about angels to be the basis upon which you formulate a theory of time?
A
AlNg
Guest
Why is it wild speculation to speak about angels? I thought that it was an article of faith that St. Michael was an archangel and that Mary was visited by an angel and that each Catholic has a guardian angel. Now are you telling me that this is only wild speculation?
S
STT
Guest
Great so you agree that God was before creation. So let me to set up a syllogism to see whether you agree with it or not.
- God was alone in a point
- We then have God and creation in another point
- From (1) and (2) we can deduce that we have a change
- Change is not possible without time (that I already show it to you but please see below to see that this premise is true)
- Time is a component of creation
- (4) and (5) cannot be both true otherwise we face with a contradiction
- (4) is correct (that is what can be concluded from what you have accepted) therefore (5) is wrong
S
STT
Guest
No. The fact that time has a beginning doesn’t mean that it is created.
G
Gorgias
Guest
See… you keep doing this; that’s why I’m so unwilling to use the imprecise terminology that you insist on using! sigh
OK: God was prior, but not prior in a temporal sense. So, if by “before”, you mean “before in time”, then NO… we do not agree.
But not a “point in time”.
No. Not true.
Agreed. #5 is correct; #4 is incorrect.
NO!
This is where you’ve put your blinders on, throughout the whole conversation! Every time someone says that there is change, you presume that they mean “a change that happened within the context of time”! THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’RE SAYING.
Fine, unless you mean “points in time”. If this is what you mean (and we both know that it is
), then your argument fails – it’s a circular argument! You’re using the conclusion of your argument (“time pre-exists creation”) as a premise in your argument (“points in time pre-exist creation”).Sorry… that was your (unspoken, and therefore sloppy) premise. You cannot prove an assertion using the very assertion to prove itself.
Therefore, given the syllogism you’ve set up, #4 is false, which leads us (via #6) to conclude that #5 is true: time is created at the creation of the universe. (Thanks for providing the mechanism for demonstrating that your assertion is false.
)
A
abucs
Guest
Hello STT, is there a distinction between created and created in our universe?
I am thinking about a virtual (perhaps game) world here on a computer where time is not created in the game but is a function of the game originally created outside the game. So in this example it would be the programming that only comes into existence when the game starts. From that point on it is an intrinsic part of the game.
Just my thoughts.
Regards.
I am thinking about a virtual (perhaps game) world here on a computer where time is not created in the game but is a function of the game originally created outside the game. So in this example it would be the programming that only comes into existence when the game starts. From that point on it is an intrinsic part of the game.
Just my thoughts.
Regards.
Last edited:
J
JamesATyler
Guest
Could time be some thing that isn`t directly created but rather a by-product or an experience? Time could be the by-product or an experience of the will of God. God willed that creation come to be, which is a change in the contents of what already exists, and so because of this, that which is changed or created, experiences time.
We are also co-authors in this creation. This free will, a gift of power to produce change to God’s creation, thus making it a mutual creation shared by all creatures that can will for change, with mankind receiving the greater degree of the gift. Time then is an experience of change. The change originated from God`s will.
We are also co-authors in this creation. This free will, a gift of power to produce change to God’s creation, thus making it a mutual creation shared by all creatures that can will for change, with mankind receiving the greater degree of the gift. Time then is an experience of change. The change originated from God`s will.
- Status