Time - for an IQ Test

[Image_of_God]

I also want to add something to this discussion that I posted on the other thread on the beginning of time.

In physics v = d/t ( speed equals distance divided by time). Therefore, speed and time are inversely proportionally. As time increases, speed decreases and vice versa. What happens when you have infinite time? You get zero speed which means there is no actual movement. But in order for there to be time there has to be movement.

How do you reconcile this with your idea of infinite time?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Is time inherent in existence or merely in material existence? Does it exist objectively? Just wondering, couldn’t it properly be said that time is a property of the action of human intellect upon space?

Change is inherent in physical existence. Time is a measurement of that change. We can measure it in different ways and perceive it differently, but the change takes place objectively.

Doesn’t this assume that there is only one time frame and everything is in it? We know that’s not true, however, because the faster an object moves the slower its clock runs relative to a clock on an immobile object, although to the fast moving object time would seem as normal as ever. I asked before, what happens to time for an object moving at speed = C? Would it not appear to be stopped relative to slow moving objects and yet still moving in its own time relative to itself?

Ender

Relative time is irrelevant to the existence of time. Particles cannot move at the speed of light, but if they could, it would appear to the moving object that everything else was moving at the speed of light relative to it (only with respect to the direction is was moving) but it would take an infinite amount of time for it to make that assessment. In effect, an object moving at the speed of light would live in a 2 dimensional universe (until it struck something).

Changing frames of reference is a mind game to make things appear fascinating. It’s important to know that your high velocity missile or space craft will measure changes slower than you and thus see things differently than you might otherwise expect… if you’re in that business.

The error here is that you are trying to understand the concept of eternity from inside time. All that we know is time and therefore we only have a dim incite of what eternity is. We can only do the best we can in understanding it.

According to some, God, from eternity, *creates * time. Do to us being in time, from our perspective it appears that God *created * time. To God, everything that was, is and will be is present at one moment. Therefore there is no change in God. It does not mean that these moments have always happened, but that God conceives all of it at once.

I’m not having trouble understanding it.

What you are implying in your argument is that God cannot exist without/ outside time.

I’ve already stated the opposite. God, being the cause of time, cannot exist with concern of time. But the issue is that God, not requiring nor having time to do decide to create time, could not have taken any time to make that decision and thus time would have to have been created at exactly the same moment that God was. If you accept that God is eternal then, logically, you must accept that time is also eternal.

In physics v = d/t ( speed equals distance divided by time). Therefore, speed and time are inversely proportionally. As time increases, speed decreases and vice versa. What happens when you have infinite time? You get zero speed which means there is no actual movement. But in order for there to be time there has to be movement.

How do you reconcile this with your idea of infinite time?

I think you are confusing yourself. When you say that “time increases” what you actually mean is that “the amount of time taken” increases. “Infinite time” in your example means, “takes an infinite amount of time” and if something takes an infinite amount of time to move, then yes, we call that “still”, not moving, zero velocity, or bureaucratic action.

 

[Biggie]

Change is inherent in physical existence. Time is a measurement of that change. We can measure it in different ways and perceive it differently, but the change takes place objectively.
.

Is to say that change occurs objectively the same as saying that time exists objectively? Is the measurement inherent to that measured or to the intellect that apprehends the measurement and finds it useful?

Again, I would expect the length of the stick of no particular meaning to the dog who fetches it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Is to say that change occurs objectively the same as saying that time exists objectively? Is the measurement inherent to that measured or to the intellect that apprehends the measurement and finds it useful?

Again, I would expect the length of the stick of no particular meaning to the dog who fetches it.

I think you are more concerned with the relevance issue. “Time” is used to express both the changing and the measurement of the changing and perhaps that is a part of why it can be confusing at times. The measurement of changing is by relative comparison and is only relevant to those concerned with velocities or “rates of change”. Length is only relevant to those concerned with comparative distances.

Actually it would help with the language if we merely referred to time as the measure of change and more often referred to change occurring more than time occurring, “It takes this amount of change” rather than “It takes this amount of time”. But usually people want to know how much time the changing will require as measured by their own watch.

Time → “As that thing changed that amount, this thing changed this amount.”
Length → “That distance there is a proportion of this distance here.”

Distance exists with or without an observer. Time exists with or without an observer. But the measure of either is dependent upon the observer’s measuring method and concern.

 

[Image_of_God]

I think you are confusing yourself. When you say that “time increases” what you actually mean is that “the amount of time taken” increases. “Infinite time” in your example means, “takes an infinite amount of time” and if something takes an infinite amount of time to move, then yes, we call that “still”, not moving, zero velocity, or bureaucratic action.

It is merely semantics. Whether I say time increases (the number of seconds, hours, days, etc. increases) or I say the amount of time taken increases or I say the amount in which time moves forward from a particular point, it all means the same thing. Delta time means the change in time. If delta time is infinite it means that the change in time is infinite which is the same thing as eternity or infinite time. There is no confusion.

It was the point I was trying to make that you restated. If something took an infinite amount of time to move, which is equivalent as saying an eternity or “infinite time” there would be no movement. Likewise, if time were itself infinite, everything would be at rest and nothing would move. If there is no such thing as movement, there is no such thing as time.

 

[Image_of_God]

I’ve already stated the opposite. God, being the cause of time, cannot exist with concern of time. But the issue is that God, not requiring nor having time to do decide to create time, could not have taken any time to make that decision and thus time would have to have been created at exactly the same moment that God was. If you accept that God is eternal then, logically, you must accept that time is also eternal.

Time cannot by nature be eternal because eternity implies that something is outside time. But, based on what you said, it follows that time is self-existent. But if time were self-existent, it would be eternal and would be timeless. Something had to proceed it. Whatever proceeded time was outside of it and is therefore eternal. If time is not eternal, as I believe you are saying, then you are arguing that time was created. What do you supposed did?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Likewise, if time were itself infinite, everything would be at rest and nothing would move. If there is no such thing as movement, there is no such thing as time.

How did you go from an infinite amount of time existing to everything in the universe taking an infinite amount of time? What does the existence of eternity have to do with how long it takes to drink a cup of coffee?

Time cannot by nature be eternal because eternity implies that something is outside time.

No. It means that changing is a process that is eternal or infinite in duration. It never began and it will never end. Do you say that distance is “outside of length” just because it is infinite?

But, based on what you said, it follows that time is self-existent.

I’m not certain what you mean by “self-existent” here. Time requires changing of something. That something must exist in order for it to change. God, by definition, is the cause of both.

 

[sidbrown]

Particles cannot move at the speed of light, but if they could, it would appear to the moving object that everything else was moving at the speed of light relative to it (only with respect to the direction is was moving) but it would take an infinite amount of time for it to make that assessment. In effect, an object moving at the speed of light would live in a 2 dimensional universe (until it struck something)…

Not true, since the photon is a particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field, which moves at the speed of light.

 

[sidbrown]

I also want to add something to this discussion that I posted on the other thread on the beginning of time.

In physics v = d/t ( speed equals distance divided by time). Therefore, speed and time are inversely proportionally. As time increases, speed decreases and vice versa. What happens when you have infinite time? You get zero speed which means there is no actual movement. But in order for there to be time there has to be movement.

How do you reconcile this with your idea of infinite time?

Not true if you take d =2k feet and t = 3k seconds. Let k go to infinity, then t goes to infinity , but v remains constant at 2 feet/ 3 seconds

 

[James_S_Saint]

Not true, since the photon is a particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field, which moves at the speed of light.

Semantics. A photon is very different than what is normally called a particle. That is why it seems to have both properties of a particle and a wave. It is half way to being a particle, but lacks a third dimensional loop or bond (which is also why it travels so fast, but only in one direction).

 

[sidbrown]

Semantics. A photon is very different than what is normally called a particle. That is why it seems to have both properties of a particle and a wave. It is half way to being a particle, but lacks a third dimensional loop or bond (which is also why it travels so fast, but only in one direction).

Not true, since light can be bent and therefore travel in more than one direction.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Not true, since light can be bent and therefore travel in more than one direction.

I’m not interested in your obfuscation.

 

[sidbrown]

I’m not interested in your obfuscation.

Not true. It is not an obfuscation, just a simple fact that light can be bent and therefore the direction of travel will change.

 

[sidbrown]

Semantics. A photon is very different than what is normally called a particle. That is why it seems to have both properties of a particle and a wave. It is half way to being a particle, but lacks a third dimensional loop or bond (which is also why it travels so fast, but only in one direction).

According to Sir Isaac Newton, light is made up of particles which rule out the presence of any propagating medium.

 

[vz71]

Not true, since light can be bent and therefore travel in more than one direction.

OK, so how do you know that it is the path of the light that bends and not the universe around it warping?

 

[Image_of_God]

How did you go from an infinite amount of time existing to everything in the universe taking an infinite amount of time? What does the existence of eternity have to do with how long it takes to drink a cup of coffee?

I was arguing that if in small matters an infinite amount of time does not allow for movement, then even in large matters such as the universe, no movement would occur in an infinite amount of time. If the universe is infinite when did the first movement begin?

To say that time or the universal is eternal is as equally illogical as saying you can move forward on a line (in its entire infinity). Since there is no beginning in which to start moving, there is no real forward movement.

No. It means that changing is a process that is eternal or infinite in duration. It never began and it will never end. Do you say that distance is “outside of length” just because it is infinite?

You are arguing that time is timeless. If there is a change that implies movement. If there is movement there has to be a beginning for it. And if there is a beginning it cannot be eternal in the proper sense.

A distance that is infinite has no actual length because it has no ends. It could be argued that an infinite distance is not a distance at all because it requires two ends.

I’m not certain what you mean by “self-existent” here. Time requires changing of something. That something must exist in order for it to change. God, by definition, is the cause of both.

If something is self-existent then that would mean that it always was.

You state that “something must exist in order for it to change.” But if something always existed, such as you argue with time, then it does not change.

 

[Image_of_God]

Not true if you take d =2k feet and t = 3k seconds. Let k go to infinity, then t goes to infinity , but v remains constant at 2 feet/ 3 seconds

I don’t understand what you are arguing here. If d and t both become infinite then v becomes infinite as well because v and d are directly proportional.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I was arguing that if in small matters an infinite amount of time does not allow for movement, then even in large matters such as the universe, no movement would occur in an infinite amount of time. If the universe is infinite when did the first movement begin?

To say that time or the universal is eternal is as equally illogical as saying you can move forward on a line (in its entire infinity). Since there is no beginning in which to start moving, there is no real forward movement.

I’ll explain the second part of that if you will explain the first. It appears as though you are making no sense at all concerning the no movement thing, so could you give some kind of fantasy example that would lead to what you are trying to say?

 

[Image_of_God]

I’ll explain the second part of that if you will explain the first. It appears as though you are making no sense at all concerning the no movement thing, so could you give some kind of fantasy example that would lead to what you are trying to say?

I’ll try.

We understand in physics that v=d/t. If t were infinite, no matter the size of d, v would always be 0. Not that that when we say t is infinite it implies that the object always existed.

In order for any movement to occur in the universe there has to be a speed, which means that there would have to be a certain amount of time for it occur. Movement is the basis of time. If there is no movement, there is no time.

I used the small object to demonstrate that if there were no beginning to time, no object would ever move. Just try to conceive of movement without a beginning and you will quickly realize that you cannot. If movement cannot occur without a beginning then neither can time because motion and time are dependent on one another.

Note: By arguing that time is eternal you are arguing that time is timeless which is logically contradictory.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’ll try.

We understand in physics that v=d/t. If t were infinite, no matter the size of d, v would always be 0. Not that that when we say t is infinite it implies that the object always existed.

In order for any movement to occur in the universe there has to be a speed, which means that there would have to be a certain amount of time for it occur. Movement is the basis of time. If there is no movement, there is no time.

I used the small object to demonstrate that if there were no beginning to time, no object would ever move. Just try to conceive of movement without a beginning and you will quickly realize that you cannot. If movement cannot occur without a beginning then neither can time because motion and time are dependent on one another.

Note: By arguing that time is eternal you are arguing that time is timeless which is logically contradictory.

Emm… I asked for an “example” for a reason. I read your explanation the first time and it didn’t seem to be making any sense. Please provide an example. It need not be anything real, just something to visualize. …please.