P
Prometheus1974
Guest
Sorry if I respond more slowly, work will be busy over the next few days… but I look forward to what you have to say. Thanks for taking the time!
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
What “future effects” will what the Church is teaching have? If it is the truth, which I believe through proper discernment, then the only effect is that you are wrong and misleading others.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
As I think I mentioned in either this thread or the other, my first delving into exactly what time is and isn’t was concerning the issue of exactly how many items are required for time to exist. As you can see from the definition of time, two items are required, specifically two items of change or three is you wish to include the philosophic observer. But shortly, I hope you will see that doesn’t really change the logic of the argument, but merely which words might have been better (a part of the test).
If there was only one change occurring, there would be nothing with which to compare that change and thus technically there could be no relative change. But we also use the word “time” to indicate a sequence of changing or changes, not necessarily related to hours or minutes. We can say that event 1 took place, then event 2, then 3. and thus express a time sequence even though we have not specified how many hours or perhaps even years took place between any two events. We still see this as time because we are, in effect, relating the 2nd change to the 1st change, so we use our natural memory as a comparator rather than a consecutive comparator.
This leaves us with the concern of how much change is taking place because we can also, through memory, divide any change into small segments of its occurrence. Thus any change greater than the most infinitely small change would still yield the opportunity to measure time. Each infinitely small change from a single event would constitute another change with which to give us an occurrence of time.
If time were to come to a stop for even the most infinitesimal moment, at that moment it obviously would have had no cause and without a cause, it could never start up again and thus all things would be frozen throughout eternity. But in reality, that moment could never occur because the cause of time, God, cannot Himself change else He would not be the cause of change but the product of it. To say that time stopped is to say that God no longer existed and thus there would be nothing with which to cause time again.
Although not relevant to this argument, if that moment occurred in which all time stopped, the entire universe would instantly vanish because it is only change that makes up the universe and everything within it. God is the cause of change and thus the creator of the universe which IS the changing. That which truly has no change within it, cannot be detected at all. This relates to Moses’ account of not being able to see God, but only able to see where God has been - what got changed.
If your comment had only been of this issue of the word “relative” requiring more than one item, and if this were really a point scale test, I would give points to your favor for noticing the issue. But if you had carried that issue and made it an issue throughout the argument, I would have to take those points back away, because you would be displaying a lack of perception of significance as well as not foreseeing the issue that any change can be broken down into a sequence of smaller changes. The issue of significance is one of the man who tells his depressed wife that she doesn’t look as good today as yesterday. Being technically accurate at the wrong time is a lack of a specific kind of intelligence concerning awareness, rationality, “whole picture perspective”, Holiness, and being able to properly interpret ancient writings from foreign cultures (one must attend to the environment of the writer). Every detail of every response has meaning and conveys significance toward any accurate measure of intellect. The atheist trying to analyze the Bible tells on himself far more than anything else.
As far as GR, reference frames are irrelevant. We need only one to assess the situation of the existence of time. Switching reference frames so as to see how fast something might be measured by a relatively moving observer would not only complicate the argument but actually be irrelevant since we are talking about the existence of any time at all, not how fast some change occurs with respect to another change.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Not a problem and thank you for returning to the OP topic.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
I forgot to mention that length is to distance as time is to change so your analogy isn’t quite correct. They, and ALL measurements, are an issue of relative comparison. This is in fact, why relativity works the way it does. We set a standard distance such as a meter, then we compare all other distances to that one and speak of length, size, and volume. Similarly we set a standard change in motion, a second, and compare all other changes in motion to that one and speak of the time of motions and changes.
What apparently didn’t occur to Einstein was that physics is entirely involved in merely measurements, not reality. ALL measurements are relative so it should be immediately apparent that “if you measure all things relative to each other, then all measurements will be relative” (and is to a metaphysicist/logician). What should have been a clue to Einstein was that the speed of light seems to not be relative while all else is. This was a puzzle that he apparent never figured out. Although a brilliant technician (mathematician specializing in physics), he was still merely a technician to the metaphysicist. On some other thread I can explain why it is that the speed of light would not be relative. There is a precise reason for that effect.
In general allowing physicists to dictate society’s image of reality is about the same as getting rid of all electronic engineers and allowing all understanding of electronics to be the realm of electronic technicians. Electronics would reach a plateau from where speculative technicians (speculative physicists) would make bizarre and imaginative speculations as to what electronic designs “might work” and the reasons why they didn’t. This is what has been happening in quantum mechanics. The entire issue and argument for “possible worlds” comes from the technicians speculating on why electronics really works. They speculate that “maybe there could be a 4th spatial dimension or 5th” and “maybe events on a sub-nuclear scale are not causal, but purely random”. Such is silly nonsense and no more than daydreaming fed by the desire to be the Pope of Scientism, yet physicists cannot see the logic to why it is such non-sense thus the population and psuedo-intellectuals are led into believing such things as 11 dimensional reality.
This is also largely why the growth of atheism and materialism comes up. Technicians can’t see the logic concerned in divine issues nor the actual rationality within the Scriptures. They speculate from a position of ignorance and blindness to higher metaphysical reasoning and conclude that what they cannot understand must be merely superstition while themselves creating their own superstitions in forms they cannot perceive.
What apparently didn’t occur to Einstein was that physics is entirely involved in merely measurements, not reality. ALL measurements are relative so it should be immediately apparent that “if you measure all things relative to each other, then all measurements will be relative” (and is to a metaphysicist/logician). What should have been a clue to Einstein was that the speed of light seems to not be relative while all else is. This was a puzzle that he apparent never figured out. Although a brilliant technician (mathematician specializing in physics), he was still merely a technician to the metaphysicist. On some other thread I can explain why it is that the speed of light would not be relative. There is a precise reason for that effect.
In general allowing physicists to dictate society’s image of reality is about the same as getting rid of all electronic engineers and allowing all understanding of electronics to be the realm of electronic technicians. Electronics would reach a plateau from where speculative technicians (speculative physicists) would make bizarre and imaginative speculations as to what electronic designs “might work” and the reasons why they didn’t. This is what has been happening in quantum mechanics. The entire issue and argument for “possible worlds” comes from the technicians speculating on why electronics really works. They speculate that “maybe there could be a 4th spatial dimension or 5th” and “maybe events on a sub-nuclear scale are not causal, but purely random”. Such is silly nonsense and no more than daydreaming fed by the desire to be the Pope of Scientism, yet physicists cannot see the logic to why it is such non-sense thus the population and psuedo-intellectuals are led into believing such things as 11 dimensional reality.
This is also largely why the growth of atheism and materialism comes up. Technicians can’t see the logic concerned in divine issues nor the actual rationality within the Scriptures. They speculate from a position of ignorance and blindness to higher metaphysical reasoning and conclude that what they cannot understand must be merely superstition while themselves creating their own superstitions in forms they cannot perceive.
No it’s not.
It is interesting that you bring about irrelevent issues into this thread whenever it suits, but cry rather loudly when others do.
No, that is not at all what you said (although this new statement is equally illogical).
If you would like, I will quote the posts, although it would seem disheartening that I would be engaged in a debate with someone that cannot remember what they have said from one post to the next.
The point in the long series was actually addressed in my initial argument on it.
Perhaps you missed it…you should go back and re-read it.
So are you talking about an eternal cause, or simply a cause?
You seem to be using the two interchangeably. They are not the same thing, and you should know this.
What my Catholic faith demands or does not demand of me is irrelevent to this thread.
Your assumption as to what it is actually requiring of me is false.
And your assumption that my faith has anything to do with a straight logical argument is likewise false.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Time stops for the photon.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Well then, in your certainty, you just keep right one presumptuously speculating with such brilliant counter arguments and do your best to enjoy the fires of frustration.
Time stops (or actually never started) in one axis only. Not that such has anything to do with anything.
The pot calling the kettle black comes to mind here.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You got him here but I believe he will not see the Truth and will continue on his thought as he has assumed that he is “more intelligent” than those posting here, as he has said.
Totally illogical to believe that cause and effect must exist at the same time, to have such a thing is to destroy the linkage between cause and effect. If they both exist at the same time then how do we know that the effect isn’t really the cause?
S
sidbrown
Guest
It proves that what you have said about time stopping does not occur.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Well if you think so, then you have no excuse to not be happy. Sometimes its good to have an imagination even if only to imagine something wrong to complain about.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial to the point at hand.
C
Cathyami
Guest
Interesting posts,
A couple of slightly different (name removed by moderator)uts then what has been already posted (please, I do so without the consideration of disclaimers or with rigorousness).
a) I follow the Bible (and the Church Magisterum) and believe that God created all from nothing; is all, is complete, and is unknowable except through Jesus (and Bible; and all things God inspired) and God’s creation.
Time was created by God, implemented by God, and exists as it does by God and that we may never understand (ever fully) the mystery of it except by truthfully pursuing it (much like these postings) getting at it via observation and observed trends and other God revelations to us (for example, our observation of nature; but this is incomplete modeling; science). Maybe it is not a constant or discreet concept, even in generality) to understand.
As such, there were no rules for God, no physical laws confining to Him, etc; God created all of these as well (but, He did not steal from the pigilly-wiggly store (“Oh, Brother”)). And, God could have chosen to create these however he perfectly chose to do so. And, He did not promise to reveal them to us; least of all in their completeness.
example, He could have chosen time to give rise to reveal cause before effect, gravity not to exist, Einstein to be always confounded, and any or all of us to never have a clue (unrevealed).
b) In the science modeling pragmatism; time can be defined in terms of the gain in entropy. Entropy always is positive (so in our physical existence can not be zero or negative) as we only know so far (it is interesting to think of why time can not be reversed). The measure of time gets at the measure of entropy changes in some relative way meaningful to us humans. But, like all models, this relativism can not be known as far as absolute accuracy for many reasons; for example it may not be constant (see the discussions of the possible nonconstancy of our defined physical constants.
b2) Light does not experience time or space. Things of mass (interesting to really think of what mass is as different then light) only experience space and time (as we possibly can comprehend it) and can very well do so differently depending on its amount of mass and existence in other mass physicalities (for example, gravity). The essence of all life is timeless (eternal) and the essence of being human is timeless (for example, one moment of your life is just as important as another; or more accurately, you are you one moment of your life just as much as any other momen or your life (sub example, you are not any less complete if God has you die at two versus ninety two (and even though this statement may not make complete sense)).
c) Jesus (God) created the Church and promised it would always prevail, exist. We completely trust Jesus and so we trust that Jesus’ bride The (Catholic (there is only one reality I humbly submit (yes, two more whole dimensions to this discussion folks)) Church will carry out his commands as he chooses them. But, the Church has not and likely will not in the future do so perfectly as it is made up of things human as well. None of us would know if the Church’s Magisterum were perfect as we can not recognize perfection (God) except through Jesus as Jesus sees fit.
d) IQ is a silly disease caused pursuit of the human mind (see Stephen Gould, The Mismeasure of Man). A single number can not represent anything of intelligence assuming (incorrectly) one can even define what intelligence is (other than something along the lines of the “act of fearing” the Lord as the Bible books of Wisdom defines).
so, toss these around a little. again, please, I participate without consideration of being the target of a firing range.
A couple of slightly different (name removed by moderator)uts then what has been already posted (please, I do so without the consideration of disclaimers or with rigorousness).
a) I follow the Bible (and the Church Magisterum) and believe that God created all from nothing; is all, is complete, and is unknowable except through Jesus (and Bible; and all things God inspired) and God’s creation.
Time was created by God, implemented by God, and exists as it does by God and that we may never understand (ever fully) the mystery of it except by truthfully pursuing it (much like these postings) getting at it via observation and observed trends and other God revelations to us (for example, our observation of nature; but this is incomplete modeling; science). Maybe it is not a constant or discreet concept, even in generality) to understand.
As such, there were no rules for God, no physical laws confining to Him, etc; God created all of these as well (but, He did not steal from the pigilly-wiggly store (“Oh, Brother”)). And, God could have chosen to create these however he perfectly chose to do so. And, He did not promise to reveal them to us; least of all in their completeness.
example, He could have chosen time to give rise to reveal cause before effect, gravity not to exist, Einstein to be always confounded, and any or all of us to never have a clue (unrevealed).
b) In the science modeling pragmatism; time can be defined in terms of the gain in entropy. Entropy always is positive (so in our physical existence can not be zero or negative) as we only know so far (it is interesting to think of why time can not be reversed). The measure of time gets at the measure of entropy changes in some relative way meaningful to us humans. But, like all models, this relativism can not be known as far as absolute accuracy for many reasons; for example it may not be constant (see the discussions of the possible nonconstancy of our defined physical constants.
b2) Light does not experience time or space. Things of mass (interesting to really think of what mass is as different then light) only experience space and time (as we possibly can comprehend it) and can very well do so differently depending on its amount of mass and existence in other mass physicalities (for example, gravity). The essence of all life is timeless (eternal) and the essence of being human is timeless (for example, one moment of your life is just as important as another; or more accurately, you are you one moment of your life just as much as any other momen or your life (sub example, you are not any less complete if God has you die at two versus ninety two (and even though this statement may not make complete sense)).
c) Jesus (God) created the Church and promised it would always prevail, exist. We completely trust Jesus and so we trust that Jesus’ bride The (Catholic (there is only one reality I humbly submit (yes, two more whole dimensions to this discussion folks)) Church will carry out his commands as he chooses them. But, the Church has not and likely will not in the future do so perfectly as it is made up of things human as well. None of us would know if the Church’s Magisterum were perfect as we can not recognize perfection (God) except through Jesus as Jesus sees fit.
d) IQ is a silly disease caused pursuit of the human mind (see Stephen Gould, The Mismeasure of Man). A single number can not represent anything of intelligence assuming (incorrectly) one can even define what intelligence is (other than something along the lines of the “act of fearing” the Lord as the Bible books of Wisdom defines).
so, toss these around a little. again, please, I participate without consideration of being the target of a firing range.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
But what of the OP question?
A “clue” ==> Man defines what “cause” means to man and thus even God could not choose that cause came after effect, man would just rename them back to the same as they were, unless you are accepting that God could make man into a mere robot without choices, but then that wouldn’t be man.
Not exactly true. but not really relevant.
Gould was very right about intelligence not being able to be measured by a single number, but otherwise, he seems to have not really understood much about intelligence.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You are placing a limit upon the power of God here.
God could determine that cause comes before effect and inspire man to realize this, jsut as we have the inspired Word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures. Gods inspiration is not limited in any way.
Gods inspiration of the Holy Scriptures in no way took away mans free choice nor turned the writers in to “mere robots”.
Yes, IQ is totally meaningless as different cultures will test differently on the same test due to other issues than actual intelligence. Also it is flawed as it is based on the Bell Curve so there are just as many scoring in the genius castigatory as there is scoring in the mentally retarded castigatory.
Problem with the little test you are trying to do here though is very arrogant as it is totally subjective. You decide who is intelligent by seeing who agrees with your flawed view of what the Catholic Church Teaches and what you believe to be the Truth on a subject, Time, that you in no way can prove with science.
You disagree with almost every philosopher out there as well as with what the Church Teaches. You have decided that those who believe the Church are unable to discern the Truth when in reality those who believe as the Church Teaches is because they have discerned the Truth in it.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
I’m putting a limit on the will of God. God can’t do what God doesn’t choose to do.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
And you have yet to prove that God has or has not done anything except by your own decision rather than using the Truth as given to us by God though His Church.
Your limit upon God is your limit, not God’s.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
And Your thought that I am attempting or have need to prove anything concerning the Church and/or God is Your thought, not mine.
Have you anything to say concerning the actual OP subject and question? Or are you here just to belligerently harass?
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
If you would like, I can quote the numerous posts that show belligerent harassment…but a quick read of the thread would show this.
- Status