Time cannot be created

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
40.png
JuanFlorencio:
STT, let’s suppose that time is a thing. Is it perceivable?
Click to expand...
We don’t have any sense to perceive time but yes we can experience internal rhythm which has duration. We experience speed for example. You experience the speed of cars every time you want to cross a street so you can know whether you will be safe or not if you want to cross the street. Speed however is created by brain. There should be a duration between two events in our brain otherwise speed cannot be created.
Click to expand...
Actually, STT, I do not have any trouble admitting that we experience rhythms and movement in general. You don’t have to prove that part to me. You don’t have to prove either that the events in the examples you are proposing are sequential. You see the car coming and your brain is working. We distinguish a sequence of events in relation to the car in motion, and also we could distinguish a sequence of events associated to the functioning of your brain. We can start from this point.

I understand that when you say that time is a thing, you mean that it is an entity which is independent of the car and your brain. All you have to do is to prove that time is really a thing in that sense.
 
STT - I believe there needs to be a constant link of sorts with God, in order for anything to ‘be’.
 
James - Yes, to begin with an effect, is putting the cart before the horse - it first takes a cause (or causes) - and the first/original ‘cause’ must be of itself acaused.
 
STT - Ah, but God’s level of consciousness and level of observation is rather more than that of any of His creation - He is the initiator and overseer and ultimate arbiter of HIS science. Don’t make the mistake of limiting Him in the same sort of way as His creation(s).
 
JamesATyler said:
Ok. Wait a minute. MountCarmel is making a valid observation when asks whether you believe in the cause and effect law.
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree with the law of cause and effect and say more: You need time for any cause. Therefore time cannot be created since we face a contradiction, you need time for creation and time is a component of creation.
JamesATyler said:
If what you wrote if true then time begins as an effect without a cause. If time is the first thing to exist then the whole sequence of creation is presumably:

Effect -> cause -> effect -> cause and so on. That is unconventional thinking. (or is it. Someone enlighten me.)
Click to expand...
I agree that there was a cause first, either a person or a form of unstable energy which could turn into everything.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Actually, STT, I do not have any trouble admitting that we experience rhythms and movement in general. You don’t have to prove that part to me. You don’t have to prove either that the events in the examples you are proposing are sequential. You see the car coming and your brain is working. We distinguish a sequence of events in relation to the car in motion, and also we could distinguish a sequence of events associated to the functioning of your brain. We can start from this point.

I understand that when you say that time is a thing, you mean that it is an entity which is independent of the car and your brain. All you have to do is to prove that time is really a thing in that sense.
Click to expand...
Great. My argument is simple. You could have set S={s1,s2} where s1 and s2 are two states of a system. For now you two independent points. You can either have a sequence E=[s1,s2]. A sequence contains more information than a set since in a sequence a component follows another, lets it be s1->s2. The process is either is timeless or timebound, you have no other option. The process cannot be timeless therefore it is timebound.
 
STT said:
Great. My argument is simple. You could have set S={s1,s2} where s1 and s2 are two states of a system. For now you two independent points. You can either have a sequence E=[s1,s2]. A sequence contains more information than a set since in a sequence a component follows another, lets it be s1->s2. The process is either is timeless or timebound, you have no other option. The process cannot be timeless therefore it is timebound.
Click to expand...
When we introduce order in a set, we certainly are adding information to it: I have formed a set of three individuals I1, I2 and I3. As you suggest, order plays no role in it. Now I add order to it, forming them by size, from the smaller (let’s say I2), to the taller (let’s say I1). The resulting ordered set, or sequence, is E = [I2, I3, I1]. Do you think that the difference between the simple set and the ordered set, whatever it is, is a thing?
 
Last edited:
there is no “system” prior to creation. therefore, there is no change prior to creation. without change, there is no concept of “time”.

God does not change, ever.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
When we introduce order in a set, we certainly are adding information to it: I have formed a set of three individuals I1, I2 and I3. As you suggest, order plays no role in it. Now I add order to it, forming them by size, from the smaller (let’s say I2), to the taller (let’s say I1). The resulting ordered set, or sequence, is E = [I2, I3, I1]. Do you think that the difference between the simple set and the ordered set, whatever it is, is a thing?
Click to expand...
The tallness is a property therefore it is not a thing. In our case s1->s2 which means that s2 comes after s1 therefore we have a motion. There should be a duration for this motion otherwise it will never take place.
 
STT said:
The tallness is a property therefore it is not a thing. In our case s1->s2 which means that s2 comes after s1 therefore we have a motion. There should be a duration for this motion otherwise it will never take place.
Click to expand...
I need to make sure that I am understanding you. Do you think that each one of the following terms are related to different “things”?: the car, your brain, the movement of the car, the change of your brain, the duration of the movement of the car, the duration of the change of your brain, the time during which the car is moving, the time during which your brain is changing…
 
JuanFlorencio said:
I need to make sure that I am understanding you.
Click to expand...
I think that is the problem. The idea is very simple but I cannot verbalize it better.
JuanFlorencio said:
Do you think that each one of the following terms are related to different “things”?: the car, your brain, the movement of the car, the change of your brain,
Click to expand...
These are different.
JuanFlorencio said:
the duration of the movement of the car, the duration of the change of your brain, the time during which the car is moving, the time during which your brain is changing…
Click to expand...
Some of these are equal such as the duration of the movement of the car and the time during which the car is moving.
 
STT, what if time isn’t linear at all? Maybe time exists in a state that we really can’t comprehend, so we make it a linear model.
 
Linear, meaning left to right, as in a “timeline.”

If time doesn’t exist in any state, how can it exist at all?
 
So time is outside of the system, not part of it. Very interesting. Almost like space…no beginning, no end, so it couldn’t be contained by any system. What do you think?
 
forgiveme31 said:
So time is outside of the system, not part of it. Very interesting. Almost like space…no beginning, no end, so it couldn’t be contained by any system. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Yes, time is not part of a system. I showed in the argument you quoted that time is required for any change. Moreover time has a beginning but possibly no end. The argument for beginning of time is simple: Suppose time has no beginning. This means that time existed at infinite past. It however takes infinite amount of waiting to reach from infinite past to now which this is impossible. Therefore time has a beginning.
 
I’m not convinced that time is linear. If it’s not a line, it may have no beginning and no end. Let’s use space as an example: infinite. No beginning, no end, constantly expanding. More importantly though, as Catholics we believe that God always was, i.e. no beginning to His being. If God always was, then time has no beginning. Remember the word “always” is a limitless function of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top