Was the universe really created in time?

[Jaaanosik]

We have physicists in this thread.

Can we define units of measure of time?
What are the UoM of time?
How is time related to motion? Motion of what?

Maybe we can agree on a concept of the first photon moving the Planck distance in the Planck time from the [0,0,0] of the first inertial reference system in whatever direction.

Is this a reasonable proposition?
The time can be the number of the Planck time ticks the first photon travels or it can be the distance it traveled.

Do we have units of measure?

The obvious question is where the first photon came from?

 

[Aloysium]

Perhaps if we consider the universe as a magificent symphony, God might be thought of the composer and conductor, we part of the orchestra. It doesn’t quite work because we are also part of the melody and God brings it all into being. Meh, all analogies only work so far.

 

[Bahman]

Nothing is not a something.

You need “something” to change that “something” from “one something” to “another something”.

There was not a thing to change. At all. Nothing. No- thing.

Nothing cannot change to something. For there is nothing to change.

Rather there is creation.

Difficult for our “time-creation-bound- language -frame of reference” to express.

I didn’t say that nothing is something but instead nothing to something is a change.

 

[SMHW]

I think “time” has meaning beyond what physics can describe. As Catholics we ought to consider what time means for pure spiritual beings such as angels. As created beings we would suppose that they are somehow subject to time.

We are used to thinking that they are not subject to the usual laws of the “physical world” although our Faith teaches that they can somehow interact with it. Perhaps our understanding of “pure spirit” is wrong. I tend to think our understanding of time is too limited.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I think “time” has meaning beyond what physics can describe. As Catholics we ought to consider what time means for pure spiritual beings such as angels. As created beings we would suppose that they are somehow subject to time.

We are used to thinking that they are not subject to the usual laws of the “physical world” although our Faith teaches that they can somehow interact with it. Perhaps our understanding of “pure spirit” is wrong. I tend to think our understanding of time is too limited.

The time is linked to motion of the matter in 3D space creating the fourth dimension by definition.
The motion of the spiritual beings should be different. It appears they exist in different dimensions - spiritual ones.

 

[Brendan]

I didn’t say that nothing is something but instead nothing to something is a change.

But you defined nothing as being something.

What you described to me was not nothingness to existence, but emptiness to existence.

So which one are you referring to.

 

[davidv]

I didn’t say that nothing is something but instead nothing to something is a change.

This can only be true if the meaning of “change” is revised.

When something replaces nothing, this is creation, not change. Time is a measure of change, not creation.

Note: The use of the word “when” could be interpreted to imply time, that is not the intent. However, I lack a different English word to express this thought.

 

[Bookcat]

I didn’t say that nothing is something but instead nothing to something is a change.

And it is not.

For one cannot change something that is not. That does not exist. You cannot change “no-thing” - cannot change nothing.

 

[Bookcat]

This can only be true if the meaning of “change” is revised.

When something replaces nothing, this is creation, not change. Time is a measure of change, not creation.

Note: The use of the word “when” could be interpreted to imply time, that is not the intent. However, I lack a different English word to express this thought.

 

[oldcelt]

Creation did not occur in a blink of an eye but is an ongoing process. Our planet is substantially younger than many portions of our universe…something that has been proven scientifically. Just as there are new portions of this earth forming at this very moment. All one need do is observe the mid-oceanic trenches, volcanoes, deltas, child birth and so on.
Therefore, creation is very much in time.

 

[davidv]

Creation did not occur in a blink of an eye but is an ongoing process. Our planet is substantially younger than many portions of our universe…something that has been proven scientifically. Just as there are new portions of this earth forming at this very moment. All one need do is observe the mid-oceanic trenches, volcanoes, deltas, child birth and so on.
Therefore, creation is very much in time.

Did this process have a beginning?

 

[oldcelt]

Did this process have a beginning?

Of course.

 

[yppop]

I think “time” has meaning beyond what physics can describe. As Catholics we ought to consider what time means for pure spiritual beings such as angels. As created beings we would suppose that they are somehow subject to time.

We are used to thinking that they are not subject to the usual laws of the “physical world” although our Faith teaches that they can somehow interact with it. Perhaps our understanding of “pure spirit” is wrong. I tend to think our understanding of time is too limited.

SMHW
I agree that our concept of time is limited. I contend that there are two modalities of time: cosmological and ontological. Cosmological time is the measure of CHANGE among the elements of objective reality. Cosmological time did not exist prior to the big bang, but ontological time did. Ontological time is the time that you supposed might be angelic in nature. God thinks, thought is a form of change, God’s thought is the reason for ontological time.

Nous, the spiritual substance that is the experiential part of our mind allows us to perceive cosmological time. All of our perceptions inhere in the nous. The perception of time is stimulated by the material part of the mind, the neuronal connections, because of the process called long term potentiation.

Ontological time is eternal, i.e., always existed. Cosmological time is of finite duration.

Yppop

 

[oldcelt]

SMHW
I agree that our concept of time is limited. I contend that there are two modalities of time: cosmological and ontological. Cosmological time is the measure of CHANGE among the elements of objective reality. Cosmological time did not exist prior to the big bang, but ontological time did. Ontological time is the time that you supposed might be angelic in nature. God thinks, thought is a form of change, God’s thought is the reason for ontological time.

Nous, the spiritual substance that is the experiential part of our mind allows us to perceive cosmological time. All of our perceptions inhere in the nous. The perception of time is stimulated by the material part of the mind, the neuronal connections, because of the process called long term potentiation.

Ontological time is eternal, i.e., always existed. Cosmological time is of finite duration.

Yppop

Very nicely stated…thank you.

 

[SMHW]

SMHW
I agree that our concept of time is limited. I contend that there are two modalities of time: cosmological and ontological. Cosmological time is the measure of CHANGE among the elements of objective reality. Cosmological time did not exist prior to the big bang, but ontological time did. Ontological time is the time that you supposed might be angelic in nature. God thinks, thought is a form of change, God’s thought is the reason for ontological time.

Nous, the spiritual substance that is the experiential part of our mind allows us to perceive cosmological time. All of our perceptions inhere in the nous. The perception of time is stimulated by the material part of the mind, the neuronal connections, because of the process called long term potentiation.

Ontological time is eternal, i.e., always existed. Cosmological time is of finite duration.

Yppop

Thank you for that thoughtful answer. It seems reasonable from a purely mathematical sense that if we want to extend the idea of “time” beyond the field of discussion that we need to come up with a more expansive definition of time.

 

[Bahman]

But you defined nothing as being something.

What you described to me was not nothingness to existence, but emptiness to existence.

So which one are you referring to.

We are dealing with two state of existences first God only and second God and creation which is a change and the second state comes after the first state which is very definition of time.

 

[Bahman]

And it is not.

For one cannot change something that is not. That does not exist. You cannot change “no-thing” - cannot change nothing.

We are dealing with two state of existences first God only and second God and creation which is a change and the second state comes after the first state which is very definition of time.

 

[Bahman]

This can only be true if the meaning of “change” is revised.

Well, then lets do it.

When something replaces nothing, this is creation, not change. Time is a measure of change, not creation.

We are dealing with two state of existences first God only and second God and creation which is a change and the second state comes after the first state which is very definition of time.

Note: The use of the word “when” could be interpreted to imply time, that is not the intent. However, I lack a different English word to express this thought.

Or perhaps we need time at point of creation.

 

[Gorgias]

Cosmological time is the measure of CHANGE among the elements of objective reality.

This sounds like ‘chronos’ or, in other words, what is commonly referred to as ‘time’.

Ontological time is the time that you supposed might be angelic in nature. God thinks, thought is a form of change, God’s thought is the reason for ontological time.

I suspect that I disagree with you, but before I weigh in, let me ask you: what is the nature of God’s ‘thought’ that you’re describing? Ratiocination? Logical chains of thought? Or something else entirely? (The problem I’m sensing has to do with your implicit assertion that God is mutable, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt…)

 

[Bookcat]

Well, then lets do it.

.

Nope…such is not going to change.