Time - for an IQ Test

[Prometheus1974]

Sorry if I jump in inappropriately, but as a physicist I have to disagree a few things that James S. Saint has said:

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)…

Incorrect. Light is a particle and it moves at the speed of light. Also, it would not appear to the moving object that everything else was moving at the speed of light relative to it, since the perception of motion itself depends on light. It would be more logical to say that to light, there is no passage of time, and that all points are present simultaneously. Recall that as one approaches the speed of light, length in the direction of motion contracts - this means that someone traveling sufficiently close to the speed of light would be able to reach the Andromeda Galaxy in a matter of days because for them the distance traveled would be not 2,000,000 light-years, but merely a few light-days. If therefore, and object were AT the speed of light, it would be reasonable to suggest that it does not perceive itself (or anything else) to move and that in its frame its start and destination coexist in the same location, without the passage of time.

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).

Incorrrect. Photons are very similar to other particles, including incorporating both particle and wave like phenomena. Electrons, for example, also exhibit the wave phenomenon of diffraction. Furthermore, photons and electrons both participate in collisions whereby momentum is transferred from one to the other in accordance with momentum conservation (Compton scattering). What distinguishes photons from other particles like electrons is their apparent lack of mass. Also your statement that light travels in only one direction is nonsensical; you are ignoring phenomena like refraction and diffraction - unless you are trying to demonstrate that light moves in one direction at once (like a particle?). Not sure if your reference to a third dimensional loop or bond is related to string theory - perhaps you could elaborate?

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.

The bolded statement is self contradictory. Obviously, if God “made” time, he did not require time to “make” it. As others have pointed out, the fundamental flaw of your arguments is that you insist on applying the terminology of time before time existed to make your arguments. I have no quarrel with you saying that you think time has always existed. I do find it a little silly to try to prove that time must have always existed by presupposing that it must have always existed. That would be what we call a tautology.

 

[James_S_Saint]

THE WORLD HAD A BEGINNING IN TIME (De fide)

The beginning of time definition was defined at 4th LAteran Council (1215) and at Vatican I.

One of the best reference books out there is OTT’s FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA.
I’m off to bed now , night all.

That sounds to be the issue.

---

Well maybe not. it says “The World”. The world DID have a beginning as far as I know. I am talking about the universe.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Light is a particle and it moves at the speed of light. Also, it would not appear to the moving object that everything else was moving at the speed of light relative to it, since the perception of motion itself depends on light.

That is all a semantic issue concerning the long disputed “particle” definitions and meanings. It wasn’t relevant even when it was first mentioned.

It would be more logical to say that to light, there is no passage of time,

That actually contradicts relativity, but is also irrelevant.

Photons are very similar to other particles, including incorporating both particle and wave like phenomena.

They are “similar” in many regards, but they are not the same. They have no inertia along one axis and along that axis, they behave like a wave, not a particle. The other mentioned particles all have inertia in 3 axes and thus cannot travel at the speed of light.

The bolded statement is self contradictory. Obviously, if God “made” time, he did not require time to “make” it.

You have not followed the the reasoning expressly displayed in the last page or so of posts. Your reasoning is flawed as those posts will explain.

 

[James_S_Saint]

1. On God the creator of all things*]that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals:

What does that mean??

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That sounds to be the issue.

---

Well maybe not. it says “The World”. The world DID have a beginning as far as I know. I am talking about the universe.

I see.

We have given what you asked for and explained that Catholics are not bound to only believe the infallible statements but all the Teaching of the Church.

Also we do not interpret Scripture on our own or the statements of the Church.

You seem to not want to abide by this and to interpret it all on your own.

May I ask what your credentials are that make you such an expert?

I am sorry but I did try to have an open discussion but as we have gone on you have dismissed anything you did not agree with while requiring more from us.

You do not seem to want a discussion.

When Vatican I speaks of “The World” it means the universe. It is not just speaking of the Earth. “The World” is all matter.

 

[James_S_Saint]

We have given what you asked for and explained that Catholics are not bound to only believe the infallible statements but all the Teaching of the Church.

Also we do not interpret Scripture on our own or the statements of the Church.

You seem to not want to abide by this and to interpret it all on your own.

I am not IN the Church and thus have to evaluate what I would be getting into. As long as I can verify before hand that there is nothing to disagree with, I can consider coming into the Church, but if the Church demands that I believe that 2+2=3, then why would I come into it?

May I ask what your credentials are that make you such an expert?

By your standards, I have no credentials. I have not asked that you contradict the Church and believe me, nor would I. But I have what I already know to be an infallible perspective on certain issues. As long as the CC doesn’t contradict those issues, there is still hope.

I am sorry but I did try to have an open discussion but as we have gone on you have dismissed anything you did not agree with while requiring more from us.

You do not seem to want a discussion.

Huh?? What are you talking about??

When Vatican I speaks of “The World” it means the universe. It is not just speaking of the Earth. “The World” is all matter.

Again, this is something you believe to be the case and you might be right. Hope for the Church’s sake and humanity’s that you are not.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Again, this is something you believe to be the case and you might be right. Hope for the Church’s sake and humanity’s that you are not.

No, again, this is what the Church Teaches.

May I ask why you hope for the sake of the Church and Humanity that the Church’s Teaching is wrong?

 

[James_S_Saint]

No, again, this is what the Church Teaches.

May I ask why you hope for the sake of the Church and Humanity that the Church’s Teaching is wrong?

On that issue it would be like the Church teaching that 2+2=3. Imagine what would come of the Church if it dogmatically insisted on such a assertion.

From your perspective many things are such that you could not discern the real truth either way, so it is reasonable to accept whatever the CC tells you and that is fine. But imagine for a moment that you knew without question of certain things, yet the CC required you to believe otherwise. Would you be able to stay in the Church? I know that you do not believe that anyone could know anything beyond the certainty that the Church could know, but such is possible and isn;t a problem as long as the Church realizes when to not assert or simply does not do so on the wrong issue…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

On that issue it would be like the Church teaching that 2+2=3. Imagine what would come of the Church if it dogmatically insisted on such a assertion.

But it is not, it is teaching 2+2=4 and you are hoping that the answer really is 2+2=3.

From your perspective many things are such that you could not discern the real truth either way, so it is reasonable to accept whatever the CC tells you and that is fine. But imagine for a moment that you knew without question of certain things, yet the CC required you to believe otherwise. Would you be able to stay in the Church? I know that you do not believe that anyone could know anything beyond the certainty that the Church could know, but such is possible and isn;t a problem as long as the Church realizes when to not assert or simply does not do so on the wrong issue…

So because I believe what the Church teaches is the Truth I am unable to discern.

Thank you for calling me ignorant in such a polite way.

The Church can not be wrong as it is God’s Church and is protected by the Holy Spirit in matters of Faith and Morals. I am sorry that you do not believe that but I do believe that due to the extensive discernment I went though before entering the Church at the age of 33.

You have now lost all credibility with me and I will no longer discuss with you until I receive a real apology.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You have now lost all credibility with me and I will no longer discuss with you until I receive a real apology.

Well, okay, I apologize for attempting to politely discuss anything with you.

 

[Prometheus1974]

That is all a semantic issue concerning the long disputed “particle” definitions and meanings. It wasn’t relevant even when it was first mentioned.

That actually contradicts relativity, but is also irrelevant.

They are “similar” in many regards, but they are not the same. They have no inertia along one axis and along that axis, they behave like a wave, not a particle. The other mentioned particles all have inertia in 3 axes and thus cannot travel at the speed of light.

You have not followed the the reasoning expressly displayed in the last page or so of posts. Your reasoning is flawed as those posts will explain.

It may not be relevant (you brought particles up, post #22) but I did feel incorrect statements should be corrected. I never said that photons are the same as other particles; merely that they ARE particles, particles with apparently no mass. Also, the statement “inertia along an axis” is meaningless unless I misunderstand and you are referring to moment of inertia? If I am incorrect perhaps you could to direct me to a relevant explanation.

Fair enough, I will read the rest of the posts as time permits.

 

[Prometheus1974]

Normally an IQ test measures intelligence from a “bottom-up” perspective (not that IQ could ever be accurately represented by a 3 digit number - absurdly ridicules). It shows you a picture or scenario with an error or deviation and asks for you to find the error. The more you find, the more points you get.

This test presumes a highest score and shows a picture without an error and asks for you to find the error (top-down). The more you respond with anything other than “I don’t see an error” or “It makes sense to me”, the more points you lose.

It is the difference between assuming the positive verses assuming the negative or innocent until proven guilty verses guilty until proven innocent.

Working through your posts…

This is actually not how an IQ test works. In an IQ test, your response is compared against a statistically large set of data. If your answers are similar to those of a person in the genius range, even if wrong, you would be ranked in the genius range. IOW your score does not correlate to the number of right or wrong answers. Indeed, many of the questions have no right or wrong answer.

 

[Prometheus1974]

Not True.

10 times infinity is infinite, but not the same as 5 times infinity. One boundless entity is not necessarily equal to another boundless entity.

Take for example a line off to your right and 2 lines off to your left. Count the number of points on each line. Count each point off to your right, but as you count each one off to your right, count 2 points off to your left, one from each line to your left. You will have a boundless, infinite, number off to your right, but you will always have twice that number off to your left. Both numbers will be infinite, but one is always twice as large as the other.

Sorry, Sid is right. Lets put this another way. Imagine the set containing all natural numbers: A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5…}. Now consider the set of all even natural numbers B = {2, 4, 6, 8…}. Both sets are infinite. Which is larger? (Hint: it’s not A )

 

[James_S_Saint]

Prometheus,

Why is it that you remind me immediately of the atheist sorting through the Bible page by page looking for each little thing with which to argue. I can’t help but note that in your sorting, you ignored the OP itself and the only real relevance of this thread.

Intelligence design was my field. As such, you would have a hard time finding a psychologist in the entire world who could compete with me in that arena. So I am extremely familiar with how IQ tests function. Having designed them, analyzed them, watched what social engineers and psychologists surmise and do with them, and designing machines that can take them as well, your layman’s opinion concerning them isn’t exactly meaningful to me. I can spot types of intelligence very quickly and far more precisely than any IQ test you are likely to take (like when someone skips the OP to nitpick at other details out of their situational context).

Precise metaphysics is becoming my field (exactly what makes up those little particles). My experience with physicists over the years, as I have explained in another thread, is that they are technicians specializing in mathematics as math is their primary instrument and tool. They remind me of electronic technicians who try to tell the engineers how electrons really works. Often they are more familiar with the tools than the engineer as they use the tools far more often. Physicists use mathematics far more than their engineer counterpart, the metaphysicist, and thus are familiar with “proper use”, yet still lack understanding as to exactly what makes the tool/instrument work in the first place, much like the technician who knows which oscilloscope probe to use, but doesn’t really understand why and what that impedance issue is really all about.

I have gotten into the theoretical concerns of infinities with serious mathematicians from many years ago and we agreed that in the area of infinities, the system of mathematics simply doesn’t have sufficient notation to deal well in that area. Due to a need many years ago, I designed a notation system compatible with standard mathematics to handle infinities and cardinalities (better than Cantor’s did anyway). The need seldom arises so I certainly didn’t expect anyone to incorporate my method. But my point again, is that your layman’s memorized norms for dealing with infinities isn’t really very meaningful either.

What bothers me about this little off the cuff test is that it seems that the entire Catholic Church from near the Pope (perhaps including) all the way down has failed the test. Yet one of our well known atheists had no trouble with it at all.

One of the long standing criticisms of Christianity from the atheists has been that the athiest’s IQ scores are higher on average. I have explained to them why such a statistic is absolutely meaningless, but of course they are not likely to turn down a complimentary statistic any more than you are. But even before such criticisms arose, it was my observation that Christianity actually requires a higher intellect to fully understand it than the other branches of Abramics. This creates a problem in itself but further, as I have explained in another thread, Christianity doesn’t inspire a pursuit toward understanding and thus produces a field of memorizers comparatively void of analytical skills, thus in effect, shooting itself in the foot. It seems that Christianity is becoming the religion with no feet and its head in a cloud.

Please forgive me as I am bit saddened from this whole affair actually and that is partially why I’m not really interested in pursuing those off topic irrelevancies.

 

[cassini]

I see.

We have given what you asked for and explained that Catholics are not bound to only believe the infallible statements but all the Teaching of the Church.

Also we do not interpret Scripture on our own or the statements of the Church.

You seem to not want to abide by this and to interpret it all on your own.

May I ask what your credentials are that make you such an expert?

I am sorry but I did try to have an open discussion but as we have gone on you have dismissed anything you did not agree with while requiring more from us.

You do not seem to want a discussion.

When Vatican I speaks of “The World” it means the universe. It is not just speaking of the Earth. “The World” is all matter.

Byzcath, and James, forgive me for butting in here but both your references to 2+2=3 and 2+2=4 has presented a PARADOX that is too good to pass by. First let me say I respect both your positions and am enthralled to see James say there is a possibility of an intellectual conversion to Catholicism if everything he finds out about Christianity is 2+2=4.
Possibly unknown to you Byzcath is that James and I are also engaged on another thread discussing TIME. I gave him all he need to PROVE a 2+2=3 scenario being enacted in the Catholic Church for 250+ years now. I have no idea why he didn’t use it against you following this post above where you Byzcath **correctly **state:

’ We have given what you asked for and explained that Catholics are not bound to only believe the infallible statements but all the Teaching of the Church.
Also we do not interpret Scripture on our own or the statements of the Church.
You seem to not want to abide by this and to interpret it all on your own.'

I refer to a papal definition as to what the Holy Scriptures say and mean, one i dare say you byzcath have problems with even after saying all you said above… Before I go further here is my own DOGMA regarding Faith and science for Catholics:

Everything presupposes Creation.
Now for the classic Catholic 2+2=3

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616 the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”—First recorded publicly by Giorgius Polaccus, Venice, 1644

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

In 1633 this papal decree was declared IMMUTABLE. In 1820, even when they were about the business of HIDING the HERESY the Church again said the Papal decree was IRREVERSIBLE. At Vatican Council II, in Gaudium et Spes # 36, not only did they infer that Galileo and Newton were directed by the Holy Spirit in their work, but the council Fathers condemned the Holy Office and Churchmen of 1616 and 1633 as TROUBLEMAKERS between faith and science. But more than that, for Pope John Paul II went much further in his ridicule of that PAPAL DECREE.

Now I have the proper Catholic 2+2=4 answer to this little 2+2=3 dilemma, but there is not enough faith left in the Church to reject this heresy.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Byzcath, and James, forgive me for butting in here but both your references to 2+2=3 and 2+2=4 has presented a PARADOX that is too good to pass by. First let me say I respect both your positions and am enthralled to see James say there is a possibility of an intellectual conversion to Catholicism if everything he finds out about Christianity is 2+2=4.
Possibly unknown to you Byzcath is that James and I are also engaged on another thread discussing TIME. I gave him all he need to PROVE a 2+2=3 scenario being enacted in the Catholic Church for 250+ years now. I have no idea why he didn’t use it against you following this post above where you Byzcath **correctly **state:

’ We have given what you asked for and explained that Catholics are not bound to only believe the infallible statements but all the Teaching of the Church.
Also we do not interpret Scripture on our own or the statements of the Church.
You seem to not want to abide by this and to interpret it all on your own.'

I refer to a papal definition as to what the Holy Scriptures say and mean, one i dare say you byzcath have problems with even after saying all you said above… Before I go further here is my own DOGMA regarding Faith and science for Catholics:

Everything presupposes Creation.
Now for the classic Catholic 2+2=3

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616 the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”—First recorded publicly by Giorgius Polaccus, Venice, 1644

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

In 1633 this papal decree was declared IMMUTABLE. In 1820, even when they were about the business of HIDING the HERESY the Church again said the Papal decree was IRREVERSIBLE. At Vatican Council II, in Gaudium et Spes # 36, not only did they infer that Galileo and Newton were directed by the Holy Spirit in their work, but the council Fathers condemned the Holy Office and Churchmen of 1616 and 1633 as TROUBLEMAKERS between faith and science. But more than that, for Pope John Paul II went much further in his ridicule of that PAPAL DECREE.

Now I have the proper Catholic 2+2=4 answer to this little 2+2=3 dilemma, but there is not enough faith left in the Church to reject this heresy.

I understand what you are trying to say here but really your comparision is apples to oranges.

What you list here is the Church making a statement on science. The Church is only infallible on statements on Faith and Morals. Creation Ex Nihilo is such a statement and not science. There is no way science can prove or disprove such a thing.

I stand by the Church’s Teaching in this matter and it is infalliblly stated in Vatican I. James is playing the personal interpretation game and decided that “The World” in the decree does not mean the universe but only the Earth. He interprets to meet what he already thinks rather than taking what the Church says, as the Church says it, and then evaluate what he thinks. He is working backwards. Taking what he thinks then looking at what the Church says and looking for a way out to match his thinking. This is intellectually dishonest as it comes out to be that he is not evaluating what the Church is saying but what he is interpreting the Church as saying.

He is having the same issue with Prometheus1974 on factual issues of science too.

He is taking what he wants to be true and working backwards from that.

My “conversion” was mostly on the intellectual level, the spiritual came much later, but I was open to what the Church was saying as it said it rather than trying to interpret it in light of what I believed.

 

[vz71]

Haha… not exactly, but closer.

God is (by definition actually) the REASON (cause that) time exists. Time exists only beCAUSE of God. Not only that, but God is not the second or third level of causation, but the First. Nothing caused God who then caused time, but rather God caused something that caused time, if not directly.

So Time is simply a property of creation and not a creation itself.

 

[vz71]

A universe has always existed, with or without matter, because it has always had a cause - God.

This does not follow.
Just because there is a cause does not necessarily mean anything else has happened.

 

[vz71]

…gravity did not necessarily come into existence BEFORE orbiting even though gravity is the cause of orbiting. The cause of something happening did not necessarily preexist the thing happening, but is the REASON it happens.

Seems to me most objects would have a very difficult time orbiting another object unless gravity were already in place.

 

[Prometheus1974]

It is logically possible if you are a logical thinker.

The only way to get an infinite number for that indeterminate is if the numerator is inf^2 or greater, but we didn’t specify inf^2, but merely inf.

The reason x/0 is “undefined” is that a zero division is meaningless, but an answer of inf, or boundless, usually suffices.

So it all works, quite logically. Mathematics hasn’t handled the issues of infinity very well, but it has nothing wrong, merely insufficient for some uses.

Infinite time divided by an infinite number of portions, yields a finite portion size… assuming that your first infinite declaration, infinite time, wasn’t infinite squared or higher and it wasn’t.

Infinity / Infinity is actually not a finite number. It is undefined. So is 0 / 0. These quantities differ from division of a non-zero number because it is possible (but not certain) that the behaviour of the rational expression, if defined in the neighbourhood around the restricted value may not be asymptotic. One can try to infer a value for an undefined quantity by taking a limit, but this slight of hand is not the same as division by infinity, it is a technique to avoid division by infinity. It may seem like I am splitting hairs, but it is important to understand that one is arguing from the finite to the infinite. Treating infinity like any other finite number (multiplying infinity*5, etc.) is logically flawed. Since you are making an argument (I assume) regarding the potentially infinite co-existence of God and Time, a failure to properly handle infinity could cripple your argument (although I have not yet read enough to say that it does or doesn’t)