Time?

[JDaniel]

JDaniel,

I do not believe your definition is precise enough. Instead of saying time is a measure of motion, you would need to say that time is a measure of change. Time can exist for immaterial things (such as angels), and while it is possible to define motion such that it includes all forms of change, (i.e. a “movement of the intellect”) I don’t think most people would natually think of such a meaning. Saying “change” on the other hand is very precise, and besides the traditional definition of time is: “a measure of change”.

You are quite right. By “motion” I should have noted that I meant that in its wider sense, to include such things as substantial and accidental change and coming to be. Thank you for correcting me.

jd

 

[Nebogipfel]

Why do you think physicists speak of time and space together? Could it be because they think doing so works better for their theoretical models and calculations?

When I look out into space, I do not look back in time. I see an anomaly. I see the light from objects, once out there in space, that has finally arrived due to distance and the speed of light. This is a very important distinction. All that my eyes can see is as far as the present. The stars I think I see are just the rumors of the stars that were.

Yes the relative slowdown of time, by the force of the gravity of relative nearby objects, on moving objects in space, is no doubt an observable effect. But that means that it is a property of the combination of distance, speed and gravity and is only analogously a “property” of space.

The theoretical calculations predict physical events which are observed to happen. I infer from this that the concept of space-and-time as a single entity is probably correct, or at least, not entirely wrong. The very fact that you can’t get information from one place to another faster than the speed of light has profound implications for what time means - which is precisely the question you were asking.

On an unrelated topic:

Since your final paragraph is nothing more than an out-lashing of poorly disguised rudeness, it doesn’t deserve a cordial reply.

I’m sorry, I did not pay enough attention to who said what. That last paragraph was directed at Non Sum Dingus, who apparently finds it “hilarious” to “to watch people so desperate to deny God come so close to naming Him while trying to explain him away.”

Is it OK for believers to make this kind of rude and insulting remark about unbelievers, but not the other way round? Perhaps in this kind of discussion it’s best to avoid speculating on why people believe the things they do.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

I’m sorry, I did not pay enough attention to who said what. That last paragraph was directed at Non Sum Dingus, who apparently finds it “hilarious” to “to watch people so desperate to deny God come so close to naming Him while trying to explain him away.”

Is it OK for believers to make this kind of rude and insulting remark about unbelievers, but not the other way round? Perhaps in this kind of discussion it’s best to avoid speculating on why people believe the things they do.

I’m not completely sure what you find rude or insulting about that remark. I pointed out that some scientists, while trying to obviate a creator, describe their theories in providential terms. If you’re trying to deny the idea of creation, a single, near-instantaneous event from which the universe sprang is not your best card to play. If you’re trying to make the case against God when talking biology, it’s best to avoid naming Evolution with a capital “E” and describing it a deliberate force that provides different animals with different adaptations.

When Carl Sagan started channeling Mary Shelly and Aristotle (you know, lightning hitting amino acids in a pool of water and creating life, etc. etc.), it was laughable.

Any scientist trying to advance a world view is stepping well outside scientific method. Scientific method should be identifiying hows, not whys. Identifying processes isn’t going to touch on whether or not there was a Prime Mover behind them. But hilarity ensues when someone makes a leap of faith without calling it a leap of faith.

I’ve got no problem at all admitting that my faith involves, well…faith. I think there’s a logical underpinning for a creator (though no empirical proof either way), but it requires a belief beyond pure observation and inductive reasoning. I accept that. When aggressively atheistic scientists, however, decide that their faith isn’t really faith but SCIENCE!, it’s fun to watch.

The Big Bang sounds as much like a conscious act of will from a creator to me as it probably sounds like sounds of a godless universe to an Isaac Asimov. If only one of us is able to admit that the position requires a leap of faith, than the other one probably has some good-natured ribbing coming. Obviously, no I-told-you-so’s are in order, since neither side will have empirical proof for the God question prior to death.

 

[cpayne]

You are quite right. By “motion” I should have noted that I meant that in its wider sense, to include such things as substantial and accidental change and coming to be. Thank you for correcting me.

jd

This is what Aquinas means in his argument from motion. He is definitely not referring to “things going from point A to point B.” Motion is change, including change in duration (time).

 

[JDaniel]

This is what Aquinas means in his argument from motion. He is definitely not referring to “things going from point A to point B.” Motion is change, including change in duration (time).

I think that the proof includes local motion as well:

“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; . . .” - New Advent Summa

I believe that Aquinas means “motion” in its widest sense, in other words, in both senses: local motion (point “A” to point “B”) and change (e.g., coming to be, or, growing from small to large, etc.). So, anything that is in potency to act, such as one billiard ball struck by another and moving from point “A” (potency) to point “B” (act) is included in his definition. Why would he limit it to merely change, unless, you include change of position? But then, that is local motion.

Does that make sense?

jd

 

[NTOT]

Time is a gift from God bestowed on us mortal beings which allows us the opportunity to change our ways. If we squander our time, it will eventually run out on us and we will no longer be able to change. Then we will be fixed in eternity. Just as the angels and saints in heaven and the devils and the lost souls in hell. These lost souls no longer have the gift of time available to them to change but are fixed.

 

[cpayne]

I think that the proof includes local motion as well:

“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; . . .” - New Advent Summa

I believe that Aquinas means “motion” in its widest sense, in other words, in both senses: local motion (point “A” to point “B”) and change (e.g., coming to be, or, growing from small to large, etc.). So, anything that is in potency to act, such as one billiard ball struck by another and moving from point “A” (potency) to point “B” (act) is included in his definition. Why would he limit it to merely change, unless, you include change of position? But then, that is local motion.

Does that make sense?

jd

Yes, and I think you’re right. Thanks.

 

[Nebogipfel]

I realize that this veering off topic, but still, as the subject has already been raised:

I’m not completely sure what you find rude or insulting about that remark. I pointed out that some scientists, while trying to obviate a creator, describe their theories in providential terms. If you’re trying to deny the idea of creation, a single, near-instantaneous event from which the universe sprang is not your best card to play. If you’re trying to make the case against God when talking biology, it’s best to avoid naming Evolution with a capital “E” and describing it a deliberate force that provides different animals with different adaptations.

I doubt if any reputable evolutionary biologist would claim that evolution has some kind of intent or purpose, or is a “deliberate force that provides different animals with different adaptations”. True, Richard Dawkins describes biological structures such as wings or eyes as “designed” by evolution, but (unless I have completely misread him) he is emphatically not suggesting that evolution intends to produce these things, or is working to any kind of plan. He could hardly have written a book called The Blind Watchmaker if he was of that opinion.

When Carl Sagan started channeling Mary Shelly and Aristotle (you know, lightning hitting amino acids in a pool of water and creating life, etc. etc.), it was laughable.

I recall Sagan discussing the origin of life on Earth and the Miller-Urey experimentsin an episode of Cosmos. IIRC, that segment featured a rather sinister looking white-coated scientist in a very Frankensteinesque laboratory with dramatic “it’s alive!” music playing in the background. To me, this suggests Sagan was quite aware of the metaphysical implications of what he was discussing and was indeed having a bit of a laugh.

I’m pretty sure Sagan would have been last one to suggest that the Miller-Urey experiement provided a complete explanation of the origin of life. What it did do, though, is demonstrate that the sort of compounds from which living things on Earth are built are neither rare in the universe, nor difficult for physical processes to make.

It could have been otherwise. It could have turned out that sparking the gasses in the Miller-Urey experiment had no effect on them at all. It could have turned out that there is a chemical element or compound, a sort of “soulium”, which is always present in living matter but never present in non-living matter; it could have turned out that this element is present nowhere in the Universe except here on Earth, and that this element was impossible manufacture by any kind of physical or chemical process. This would have been a big wodge of empirical data that would have weighed heavily against a purely naturalistic or materialistic world view. But (as with the dragon in the garage) that’s not the way it turns out.

We do know that unguided random processes can start with simple structures and end up with complex structures, without having a plan or requiring the intervention of an intelligent, concious agency. So the hypothesis that random processes could take non-living matter and assemble it into something that makes copies of itself (begging, of course, the question of what, exactly, differentiates “non-living” from “living” matter) is not so far fetched.

But you are quite correct, this is purely a speculative hypothesis. There is as yet no conclusive model for how living matter arose from non-living matter. So if you’re asking me, how did life arise on the earth?, then a full, accuarate and non-speculative answer would (and, at the moment, should) be I don’t know, but people are working on it.

Any scientist trying to advance a world view is stepping well outside scientific method. Scientific method should be identifiying hows, not whys. Identifying processes isn’t going to touch on whether or not there was a Prime Mover behind them. But hilarity ensues when someone makes a leap of faith without calling it a leap of faith.

What bit of We don’t know, but we’re trying to find out constitutes a “leap of faith”?

There are many aspects of human behaviour which are hilarious. If I were minded to, I could point out some hilarious aspects of religious belief. When I did so, JDaniel felt that I was being rude and insulting. Appearances to the contrary, I am not the kind of person who likes to gratuitously insult people, so I will henceforth try and keep to myself my views on what I find hilarious about religion.

Unless, of course, people start to describe my views as “hilarious”, in which case I don’t see why I should not return the compliment. Although, it is true that I should perhaps have a thicker skin…

I’ve got no problem at all admitting that my faith involves, well…faith. I think there’s a logical underpinning for a creator (though no empirical proof either way), but it requires a belief beyond pure observation and inductive reasoning. I accept that. When aggressively atheistic scientists, however, decide that their faith isn’t really faith but SCIENCE!, it’s fun to watch.

If you assert that entity X exists, but there is no empirical evidence that entity X exists, in what way am I making a “leap of faith” in concluding that entity X probably does not exist?

…If only one of us is able to admit that the position requires a leap of faith, than the other one probably has some good-natured ribbing coming. Obviously, no I-told-you-so’s are in order, since neither side will have empirical proof for the God question prior to death.

Well, as I’ve tried to explain, I don’t see that a skeptical, empirical world view does involve a leap of faith. So yes, I can take some good-natured ribbing, provided I’m allowed to dish it out as well.

 

[JDaniel]

The theoretical calculations predict physical events which are observed to happen. I infer from this that the concept of space-and-time as a single entity is probably correct, or at least, not entirely wrong.

The way I see it, space is necessary for the parameter of “distance”; without the room for there to be distance, the equation would not even be postulated. I think it is not “space”, per se, but rather, distance measurements that presuppose space. I guess I’m just an ultra-stickler for precision.

The very fact that you can’t get information from one place to another faster than the speed of light has profound implications for what time means - which is precisely the question you were asking.

Yet, you are still speaking of the movement of something.

I’m sorry, I did not pay enough attention to who said what. That last paragraph was directed at Non Sum Dingus, who apparently finds it “hilarious” to “to watch people so desperate to deny God come so close to naming Him while trying to explain him away.”

Is it OK for believers to make this kind of rude and insulting remark about unbelievers, but not the other way round? Perhaps in this kind of discussion it’s best to avoid speculating on why people believe the things they do.

I blow it, too, sometimes. You get so involved on several threads that you forget who said what and I lash out at the wrong person. My skin is pretty thick. I would generally only point it out if the only argument seems to be an ad hominem personal attack, or, one directed at the Church.

We’re fine.

jd

 

[Nebogipfel]

The way I see it, space is necessary for the parameter of “distance”; without the room for there to be distance, the equation would not even be postulated. I think it is not “space”, per se, but rather, distance measurements that presuppose space. I guess I’m just an ultra-stickler for precision.

Yet, you are still speaking of the movement of something.

True. I must admit, I had not thought of it in quite that way before. Something new to consider!

We’re fine.

Thanks!

 

[CoG]

As with all things that are basic, the nature of time is simple. All that is needed is to understand the reality of the observations.

The ability to show relationships of time to any or all other physical reality requires time to be real and not a function of mind. If you wish to deny the reality of all things then there is no purpose for you reading this, this is only a consideration of reality.

All observations of the relations of time indicate that by the definition of dimension, time is a dimensional function. The only thing that is observed when dealing with the concept of dimension is that the only function permitted is that of motion or transition.

Since movement or transition of any physical object or function, such as waves, is the only action or influence observable with respect to dimensions it must be the only expected function in any dimension under consideration. At no time has it been shown that the shape or size of a dimension can be changed.

The mathematical relations of time with respect to other dimensions show that time must be treated and considered as a dimensional transition. When thinking about the transition of time it makes no more sense to think of time moving then to think of your car going from place because the road was moving. It is much more plausible to consider us moving in a direction considered the time dimension.

We state and use this relationship everyday. When you drive your car, you are going a given distance in a given number of seconds.

V=D/T Velocity equals unit of distance per unit of time. We of course state this a miles per hour.

The nature of time transition is just our movement outward from the Big Bang. Observation again supports this as the nature of time. When looking at distance objects in space, it is seen that all objects appear to be moving away from us. The observation is called Cosmological Red Shift. This observation shows that the transition causing the expansion of the universe is not a spatial transition. This cosmological transition is in total agreement with time being the same transition.

It is also seen that the rate of the cosmological transition would produce a time transition on the order of the speed of light.

There is much more but I will stop at this point for now.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I agree with this most of this post by NTOT.

Time is a gift from God bestowed on us mortal beings which allows us the opportunity to change our ways. If we squander our time, it will eventually run out on us and we will no longer be able to change. Then we will be fixed in eternity. Just as the angels and saints in heaven and the devils and the lost souls in hell. These lost souls no longer have the gift of time available to them to change but are fixed.

And I can’t hope to compete on the same level as some of the mental gymnastics being displayed on this thread. But I see time as more than only a measurement of change. We call it a measurement of change because it is a definition derived from what we know. I would be inclined to say that time is a type of medium through which change can be measured… but that is not its only purpose.

I remember a Father McGinnity quoting Blaise Pascale saying, “…man cannot bear too much reality at once, which is why we have to live a sequence of moments…”.

We are so bound to time that every sentence/phrase we speak is expressed in terms of time - past, present or future; yet we would tell ourselves we can be objective by looking at it in the abstract. When we attempt to describe eternity, our definition will always fall short because we are using failing human terms which are stil linked to time (however slightly) … it’s like trying to express the ocean in a glass of water.

Bishop Fulton Sheen said that the world (not the spirit of the world, but our world) is the theatre for the Act of the Redemption. That takes both time and space.

God is beyond time and space, yet I believe it is only in God that we can find a fitting definition of time. Time had a beginning, and we are told that time will end (if you’ll pardon the pun - at some future time ).