Time - for an IQ Test

[Schn]

Granted, it isn’t easy to break, but a “law” in physics was SUPPOSED to be something NEVER broken or breakable. How is it a law of reality if it is breakable at all?

Blech semantics. It’s really a tendency, so you could say the ‘law’ is that a closed physical system tends to maximum entropy.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Actually I think the simplest proposed way to break it was merely by filling an insulated sphere with a gas mix of perhaps argon and hydrogen out in space. Through time the disorder naturally becomes orderly as the heavier argon gas settles in the center of the sphere forming a separation (an order) that wasn’t there when you started.

When you begin at a highly ordered state, things more easily become disordered. When you begin with a very disordered state, things tend to become more ordered. The real law involves the balance, not either extreme (in ALL things).

 

[Schn]

Actually I think the simplest proposed way to break it was merely by filling an insulated sphere with a gas mix of perhaps argon and hydrogen out in space. Through time the disorder naturally becomes orderly as the heavier argon gas settles in the center of the sphere forming a separation (an order) that wasn’t there when you started.

When you begin at a highly ordered state, things more easily become disordered. When you begin with a very disordered state, things tend to become more ordered. The real law involves the balance, not either extreme (in ALL things).

Yes. This breaks the second law of thermoydynamics the same way a racecar on a train breaks relativity.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It not only breaks one of the many definitions for that second “tendency” by spontaneously creating order, but it also separates hot from cold. The inner argon gas will be colder than the outer hydrogen gas, yet the system began at an even temperature.

Due to the number of new definitions (in an effort to save the “law”) and their variety of meanings, disputing each of them would consume this thread. If my personal entropy decreases sufficiently, I might start a thread on it some day. It would be a very long discussion.

 

[James_S_Saint]

In fact, it occurred to me, that there is something you can do to disprove the law all by yourself. If you realize that gravity isn’t actually an issue as the gravity could be merely from an “Earth” made of a large sphere of water, just get a tall insulated column and fill it with an even mixture of oil and water. Obviously the oil will rise and separate from the water creating an order, but more interestingly, the oil will have a measurable higher average temperature than the water. And any heat that you add to the cold water, will spontaneously rise into the already heated oil. That is literally heat progressing naturally toward a higher temperature body - all by its little self.

And that is something that happens everyday throughout the universe. Heat rises and thereby defeats the notion that heat cannot travel to a higher temperature body. It does it constantly throughout the universe.

 

[sidbrown]

And Einstein wasn’t the “Father of Modern Physics”… give me a break and stop worshiping Sciencism.

“Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) was a German-born Jewish theoretical physicist of profound genius, who is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century and one of the greatest scientists of all time. The undisputed “father of modern physics,” he proposed the theory of relativity and also made major contributions to the development of quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and cosmology. He was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 (his “miracle year”) and “for his services to Theoretical Physics.””
famouspeople.com/famous_biographies/Albert_Einstein.htm

 

[sidbrown]

In fact, it occurred to me, that there is something you can do to disprove the law all by yourself. If you realize that gravity isn’t actually an issue as the gravity could be merely from an “Earth” made of a large sphere of water, just get a tall insulated column and fill it with an even mixture of oil and water. Obviously the oil will rise and separate from the water creating an order, but more interestingly, the oil will have a measurable higher average temperature than the water. And any heat that you add to the cold water, will spontaneously rise into the already heated oil. That is literally heat progressing naturally toward a higher temperature body - all by its little self.

And that is something that happens everyday throughout the universe. Heat rises and thereby defeats the notion that heat cannot travel to a higher temperature body. It does it constantly throughout the universe.

As far as oil and water mixing is concerned, if you shake water and oil vigorously to create millions of tiny interspersed bubbles, it might seem to increase the system’s entropy, but this is not true. The effect of bubble dispersal (increase entropy) is more than offset by the effect of increased contact area between water and oil which results in a decrease in entropy due to more water molecules at oil-water interfaces. Once you stop shaking, the two substances spontaneously separate and the contact area is reduced and the total entropy is thereby increased.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Sid, I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of thermodynamics, but a quick note from Wiki (not the best explanation of entropy I’ve read);

Within thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of ways in which a system may be arranged, often taken to be a measure of “disorder” (the higher the entropy, the higher the disorder). Increases in entropy correspond to irreversible changes in a system, because some energy must be expended as waste heat, limiting the amount of work a system can do. Thermodynamic entropy is a non-conserved state function that is of great importance in the sciences of physics and chemistry. Historically, the concept of entropy evolved in order to explain why some processes are spontaneous and others are not; systems tend to progress in the direction of increasing entropy. Entropy is therefore a measure of a system’s tendency towards spontaneous change. For isolated systems, entropy never decreases. This fact has several important consequences in science: first, it prohibits “perpetual motion” machines; and second, it suggests an arrow of time.

With the mentioned column of water, a perpetual motion machine “of the second type” can be built quite easily.

 

[sidbrown]

Sid, I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of thermodynamics, but a quick note from Wiki (not the best explanation of entropy I’ve read);

With the mentioned column of water, a perpetual motion machine “of the second type” can be built quite easily.

The article states clearly that entropy never decreases in isolated systems.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The article states clearly that entropy never decreases in isolated systems.

Yes, IT does. IT “says”. Is Wiki who you worship? Since the entirety of your arguments have been “they say”, I have to accept that you worship Man because everything you proposed is founded on, “this or that elite person says…”

The OP asked nothing about what other people say. It asks for what of those 7 statements you do not understand. Your arguments have been entirely that you merely disagree with the conclusion because of what other people have said. Thus obviously rather than think, you choose to follow what you think others say. You clearly do not really understand what many of them have said, but you believe that you do, so you stand to argue anyway.

Thus you will believe Truth only when Man chooses to show it to you. You are merely a puppet. Did I state that anything of those 7 statements were true because someone else said they were true? Obviously I have a different means of accepting what is or isn’t true. So why are you arguing with me?

You go ahead and believe what you think they tell you. But trying to tell me to believe what you thought they told you because they told you, is pointless. End of discussion.

 

[JDaniel]

The beginning of time and the universe is a myth and superstition.

Wouldn’t that be great for believers - and philosophers!

1. Time is relative change
2. Whatever is proposed to have caused time could have no change concerning it because change IS time, thus it must be changeless and timeless and thus “eternal”.

If motion/change “takes time”, then time cannot be identical with motion/change. They have to be different - and they are.

1. If the cause of time exists and cannot change, then it cannot *become *the cause, but rather has always been the cause.
2. The cause of time cannot exist without causing time, else it would not be the cause of time.
3. If the cause of time is present, time is immediately present.
4. The cause of time had to be eternal and thus what it causes had to be eternal as well.
5. Time is eternal - it never began.

This betrays the source of your confusion. You are under the misconception that time must be caused. Time needs no cause. Time is a correlate of motion/change. (I have to write “motion/change” because you do not seem to understand that in the slightly wider sense, they are the same. In fact, as defined by Aristotle and Aquinas, as privation and possession, they are the same.) A “correlate” means that two, or more, things are quasi-related to each other, such as two cars driving parallel to one another, but they not caused to do that by the other, although they could be.

God caused the first mobile/sentient being(s). At the same moment, time became apparent to those mobile/sentient beings. Time need not have been, per se, “caused.” Similarly, though God exists and creates “good”, He does not necessarily create evil. Evil can be correlative, in most respects, with good. Good may be caused and present; evil is the privation of good and may, or may not, be present but is not caused.

Furthermore, if sentient being had been created at the origination of God’s being, then motion/change and time would be eternal, as you suggest. However, souls are created by God and incur their forms sequentially as (human-) time passes. But, to God there is a simultaneity of all of this that we, as humans, cannot grasp.

Now, while I cannot authoritatively deny your belief that time is eternal, your argument does not authoritatively argue for its truth. Your failure to grasp what “time” is, is not a compelling indication that you are in possession of anything other than the vaguest understanding that the earliest of men had. Nevertheless, it is shown that the eternality of time is not a necessary property of the eternality of God. Such concepts as time, eternity, infinite duration, etc., are concepts provided so that mankind can grasp their meanings.

"The more complete a being is, the less it changes. A perfectly complete being would not change or need to change at all. It would possess its whole being permanently, and not in a variable series of successive stages. It would be capable of embracing its whole reality in one permanent experience. It would be always wholly itself, and forever identical with itself in every respect. It would realize all of its possibilities and meaning at once. There would be no past or present or future in our relative sense, but all would be an abiding “now,” or transcendent “present.” It would not merely (as we can partially) include the “past” by representative memory, and the “future " by anticipation based on past and present knowledge. In perfect being “past and future” would be actually present and fully possessed without differentiation of periods. Perfect duration would involve an unrestricted consciousness of the fulness of being. Time would not apply to it: it would be eternal life.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, p. 99, The Macmillan Company, 1962.

The above is the tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church. Your viewpoint is considerably at odds with this. But, you seem to be trying.

God bless,
jd

 

[James_S_Saint]

Wouldn’t that be great for believers - and philosophers!

Well thank you for being the first to actually address the argument rather than merely the conclusion.

If motion/change “takes time”, then time cannot be identical with motion/change. They have to be different - and they are.

Since time is what motion “takes”, claiming “relative motion” is not technically in error. It is the relative measurement that defines what time. The word “time” is used to mean both the relative changing as well as the the measure of it;

1. “This much time passed” - how much relative change occurred
2. “An hour has passed” - how much measurement has occurred.

But your argument was expected and isn’t completely improper. The word merely has multiple uses.

This betrays the source of your confusion. You are under the misconception that time must be caused. Time needs no cause. Time is a correlate of motion/change. (I have to write “motion/change” because you do not seem to understand that in the slightly wider sense, they are the same. In fact, as defined by Aristotle and Aquinas, as privation and possession, they are the same.) A “correlate” means that two, or more, things are quasi-related to each other, such as two cars driving parallel to one another, but they not caused to do that by the other, although they could be.

Hmm… well, you perhaps want to support that particulars of the universe have no cause to them, but that doesn’t seem to be your real mindset, thus perhaps you are confused about something.

The existence of a measurement is definitely caused by what exists to be measured. The measurement, using dear Thomas’ word, is “contingent” on the change/motion existing. But the thing being measured is NOT contingent on the measure of it.

And why you think I don’t understand the correlation between time, motion, and change is beyond me because I have said your same words many times, “motion is merely a particular case of change involving change of location”.

God caused the first mobile/sentient being(s). At the same moment, time became apparent to those mobile/sentient beings.

Not that this assertion is relevant, but did you find that in Scripture somewhere? Time being “apparent” has to do with what discussion?

Time need not have been, per se, “caused.” Similarly, though God exists and creates “good”, He does not necessarily create evil. Evil is correlative with good. Good is caused and present; evil is the privation of good.

Still seemingly irrelevant (and not entirely correct). Are you on the right thread?

Furthermore, if sentient being had been created at the origination of God’s being, then motion/change and time would be eternal, as you suggest. However, souls are created by God and incur their forms sequentially as (human-) time passes. But, to God there is a simultaneity of all of this that we, as humans, cannot grasp.

I see. You are asserting that time only exists if sentient beings exist? So before sentience, there was no time? Do you really believe that? I think you might find disagreement even in Scriptures.

Now, while I cannot authoritatively deny your belief that time is eternal, your argument does not authoritatively argue for its truth. Your failure to grasp what “time” is, is not a compelling indication that you are in possession of anything other than the vaguest understanding that the earliest of men had.

Well, you make this claim, but can you provide your definition of time and show how it is in conflict with mine? You seem to merely be asserting an error without foundation.

"The more complete a being is, the less it changes. A perfectly complete being would not change or need to change at all. It would possess its whole being permanently, and not in a variable series of successive stages. It would be capable of embracing its whole reality in one permanent experience. It would be always wholly itself, and forever identical with itself in every respect. It would realize all of its possibilities and and meaning at once. There would be no past or present or future in our relative sense, but all would be an abiding “now,” or transcendent “present.” It would not merely (as we can partially) include the “past” by representative memory, and the “future " by anticipation based on past and present knowledge. In perfect being “past and future” would be actually present and fully possessed without differentiation of periods. Perfect duration would involve an unrestricted consciousness of the fulness of being. Time would not apply to it: it would be eternal life.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, p. 99, The Macmillan Company, 1962.

The above is the tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church. Your viewpoint is considerably at odds with this. But, you seem to be trying.

I do not believe that you have shown what you claim. Does the Catholic Church teach that time did not exist until sentient beings existed???

 

[NowAgnostic]

The beginning of time and the universe is a myth and superstition.

Yeah, there need not necessarily be an infinite amount of time in the past but time always existed. Time is defined as a measure of change. There can’t, by definition, be a time before time or a time when there’s no time. In a universe without time, there would be no change by definition, and hence it would be impossible for time to come into existence.

Thus, in theism, there was never a state of affairs in which God, and nothing else, existed.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Yeah, there need not necessarily be an infinite amount of time in the past but time always existed. Time is defined as a measure of change. There can’t, by definition, be a time before time or a time when there’s no time. In a universe without time, there would be no change by definition, and hence it would be impossible for time to come into existence.

Thus, in theism, there was never a state of affairs in which God, and nothing else, existed.

See how simple it can be? :doh2:

 

[JDaniel]

Well thank you for being the first to actually address the argument rather than merely the conclusion.

It is quite impossible to have a meaningful dialog with you. You never seem to make sense. I am always amazed at how you misconstrue, and distort words and sentence syntax such that they have no common meaning amongst us poor readers any more. It is as though you have some sort of problem that disallows you from following what is commonly regarded by the rest of mankind as the “rules of the road” for discourse.

Now, you may be doing it purposefully, in order to win at any cost. Or, you may actually “think” the way you do. But, with all due respect, I cannot, in good conscience, follow you into your strange waters.

God bless,
jd

 

[James_S_Saint]

It is quite impossible to have a meaningful dialog with you. You never seem to make sense. I am always amazed at how you misconstrue, and distort words and sentence syntax such that they have no common meaning amongst us poor readers any more. It is as though you have some sort of problem that disallows you from following what is commonly regarded by the rest of mankind as the “rules of the road” for discourse.

Now, you may be doing it purposefully, in order to win at any cost. Or, you may actually “think” the way you do. But, with all due respect, I cannot, in good conscience, follow you into your strange waters.

There can only be 2 causes for that, unless it is both of course.

Thanks for trying anyway.

 

[JDaniel]

Yeah, there need not necessarily be an infinite amount of time in the past but time always existed. Time is defined as a measure of change. There can’t, by definition, be a time before time or a time when there’s no time. In a universe without time, there would be no change by definition, and hence it would be impossible for time to come into existence.

Thus, in theism, there was never a state of affairs in which God, and nothing else, existed.

I do love your sense of humor. A simple self-deification and, Viola! : time is defined and God is ruined!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

There can only be 2 causes for that, unless it is both of course.

Thanks for trying anyway.

Again, as Arnie might say, “No problemo.”

God bless,
jd

 

[James_S_Saint]

I do love your sense of humor. A simple self-deification and, Viola! : time is defined and God is ruined!

God bless,
jd

I think you are being overly presumptuous concerning what conclusions must come from what thoughts.

This thread has nothing to do with any challenge to the existence (or ruination) of God. :dts:

 

[NowAgnostic]

I do love your sense of humor. A simple self-deification and, Viola! : time is defined and God is ruined!

God bless,
jd

IOW, you don’t have a refutation to the argument. Nor can you, since it’s logically airtight.

If in your mind it constitutes self-deification and the ruination of God then so be it. I don’t know where you get that from, but whatever.