Yes… that’s exactly it! God is timeless and always exists in a timeless state. Even ‘once’ creation existed, God continues to be timeless. You’ve got it!
In a way… yes.
From all of what the author of the article says, is there anything that coincides with your thoughts about time or your thoughts are different and even opposite to those in the article?JuanFlorencio:
No I am intending to be literal here.
No, space is its own thing. It seems that spacetime continuum is doomed. Space also is emergent thing according to physicists:
www.iep.utm.edu/time/
Of course there is real change in my brain. I meant things such as speed are subjective.
I have no idea how brain create the experience of speed. I know what we experience at any given moment is form, position of a particle for example. I also know that we have an inner clock. These seems two basic ingredients though.
Just a point that Nobel Prize in physics, David Gross expressed that viewpoint we don’t know any theory with time as a emergent property:
He thinks that is hard to get a theory with time as emergent property but I think it is impossible.
Well, we only perceive forms, one of them being the distance between two objects. This is directly transformed into experience inside our brains. Speed however is a different thing. Speed is not a form so it cannot be perceived directly. Our brain however create speed and lets us to experience it.
I used to think that time as a relative change in objects, one of the object being standard clock. But I changed my mind recently. I think that time is fundamental entity of reality.
If there is real change in your brain it must consist in the relative movement of its constituent particles. If I, as an observer, focus my attention on the movement of two of those particles I could see that one moves in one direction and the other in a different direction, with respect to a position that I take as a reference. Couldn’t I say, objectively, if one particle moves faster that the other?JuanFlorencio:
Of course there is real change in my brain. I meant things such as speed are subjective.
Are you postulating that all inner clocks in the world are synchronized?JuanFlorencio:
I have no idea how brain create the experience of speed. I know what we experience at any given moment is form, position of a particle for example. I also know that we have an inner clock. These seems two basic ingredients though.
Not objectively. The only real things that you have is dt, infinitesimal duration, and dx, infinitesimal change in position. You could keep dt constant for both particle and what you observe is that the particle with faster speed moves longer.
I think that inner clock of all humans is naturally pretty similar.
I have heard stories, and experienced myself during a car accident, the perception that time can seem to slow down during extraordinary events. So is the perception of time and speed certain to be similar? Though, one second moves the second hand of a clock only one tick whether it seems slow or fast. Do you think time is involved in moving things?
If we can say objectively that a particle has traveled a given distance; and if we can say objectively as well that this particle has traveled that distance before another; and if we say that a particle is faster that other when it travels a larger distance than the other when they started moving simultaneously, why is it not objective to say that one particle is faster than the other?
If you accept that it is objective to talk about “dx” (the displacement of a body), then why do you say that motion is not real, but subjective?
I think that is the perception of speed which slows down.
I think time is needed for any change.
Because there is no speed outside our mind. You can think of it this way. The only things that are objectively real are dt and dx. Given the same duration a particle travel distance dx1 and another dx2. We however experience that first particle moves faster than another if dx1>dx2.
Perhaps it is a misuse of words. dx is change in my vocabulary. Motion could be speed for example.
Absolutely! You need to study more, so that you can learn the meaning of the words that you are using trying to convey your thoughts.
I see. Thanks for explanation.
Merely because there is duration between some, most or even all events, as a matter of fact, does not logically mean that duration between two events necessarily must be the case. There is no logical impediment to having two events (cause and effect) occurring simultaneously. Aristotle even distinguished between events that happen per accidens (in linear or “horizontal” sequence) and those which occur per se (essentially or “vertically”.) Per se events occur simultaneously because the cause sustains the effect here and now. Therefore, it isn’t true to say that duration between two events must take place.
edwardfeser.blogspot.com
There is a logical problem when you say that there exist not anything which can separate two state of affairs. The state of affairs as a whole is ill-defined.
Can you give me an example of essential events?
You didn’t notice that simultaneous cause is single and not plural. You however need to explain how a single cause can turn into a set of single causes. Are you suggesting that the information about all causes is pact into one single cause. You will be having difficult time to show that and I see contradiction in it.
Well, I think that the reality can be explained in term of linear cause which of course could have forks when we need to decide. That is only time that we can act as an uncaused cause.
There are two conceptions of observable reality. One views the observable universe mechanistically, much as a clock initially designed and built by some initial event or cause or God which merely unwinds itself. The other, the Aristotelian, Thomistic or hylemorphic view is that observable reality is more like a “performed” event which is maintained in existence at the present moment like a musical piece.
www.premierchristianradio.com
I have problems with second view: (1) How God could know the state of affair if He is supposed to hold things timelessly and (2) How a timeless act can be turned into temporal acts.
There is no underlying reality. Things exist and have some properties. This properties tell us how things interact with each other. Why are you looking for an underlying reality?
I am discussing the same problem with another friend in another thread. The universe could not existed, is contingent. Why it follows that it should be created?
I see, A theory is related to linear causation and B theory is related to vertical causation.
I see what you are trying to say in here. But I see no reason that things could not be stable and need no sustainer.
Well, because there must be a reason why THOSE “things exist” here and now, and why those things that do exist have the specific properties that they do have and not some others.