What can God do?

[MindOverMatter2]

no, we are hitting the limits of the English language simply because “happen” implies time which in this scenario doesn’t exist, however there is no other word to use.

Time does exist, since the collapse cannot logically occur otherwise.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

no, we are hitting the limits of the English language simply because “happen” implies time which in this scenario doesn’t exist, however there is no other word to use.

You argument is meaningless.

 

[Soulewolf]

Time does exist. you have no evidence to back that up other than subjective experiential evidence. Relativity however definately implies a universe without time which is based upon objective data.

A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same context.

the concept would pretty much mean that the the potentiality of the universe always existed even if the big bang started it. which is supported in the fact that the universe exists, so whatever was “before” the universe obviously had the potential to have a universe in it.

my on conception of what was before the universe is an endless potential which makes sense because the result of that would be an infinite amount of other universes. again, supported by string theory. Also, because there was no time before the universe the only accurate statement would have to be “the potential always existed”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

you have no evidence to back that up other than subjective experiential evidence.

Its not merely subjective; it is evident, according to logic, that the here and now is not synonymous to the past or the future. The world is evidently made up of events, and is not a static entity; this is just as much evident as the fact that I exist. You have given no evidence for your position other than wild assertions. Your argument is nothing more than a denial of that which is metaphysically certain.

Relativity however definitely implies a universe without time which is based upon objective data.

No it does not.

the idea of string theory, or more specifically the 5th dimension (parallel universes) is direct evidence against this.

No it is not

we are not talking about perspective. we are talking about the fact that the outcome of a quantum experiment (quantum eraser) can be changed after the experiment has taken place. Which is further evidence that time does not exist.

No it is not. You have shown no reason why the absence of time is necessitated by this quantum experiment. You are just asserting that time is absent and yet you are constantly speaking in reference to time in order to explain it: such as, the experiment is taking place, or the outcome of the experiment can be changed ect ect. Your argument necessarily requires the objective and meaningful existence of time in order to make any logical sense whatsoever. Otherwise the eraser effect cannot meaningfully take place; an effect cannot be changed. Your whole argument falls apart because you continuously shifting your premise from affirming the existence of time to affirming the non-existence of time. You are contradicting yourself since you frame your argument within the context of real objective change.

the concept would pretty much mean that the the potentiality of the universe always existed even if the big bang started it. which is supported in the fact that the universe exists, so whatever was “before” the universe obviously had the potential to have a universe in it.

Potentiality requires the actual existence of a being before there can be such a thing as potentiality. Potentiality by itself is not a being. Being must precede potentiality; thus the potential universe requires the actual existence of a necessary existential cause, existing apart from the potential universe.

my own conception of what was before the universe is an endless potential which makes sense because the result of that would be an infinite amount of other universes. again, supported by string theory. Also, because there was no time before the universe the only accurate statement would have to be “the potential always existed”

Out of nothing comes nothing. Potentiality does not exist of its own accord.

As for string theory, according to “Lee Smolin”, String theory is a hypothesis verging on mere conjecture, relying on the assumption of there being many dimensions for which there is no evidence. slate.com/id/2149598.

At the moment, it is just a mathematical idea, and whether you think that it supports your philosophical ideas or not (which it doesn’t) your argument requires us to throw logic out of the window; which, my being a rational person, I am not prepared to do.

 

[Soulewolf]

Its not merely subjective; it is evident, according to logic, that the here and now is not synonymous to the past or the future. The world is evidently made up of events, and is not a static entity; this is just as much evident as the fact that I exist. You have given no evidence for your position other than wild assertions. Your argument is nothing more than a denial of that which is metaphysically certain.

Time, as we know it, is only an illusion. We usually think of time as having three parts - Past, Present, Future. But what is the Past - only a collection of memories. We can’t experience the Past, we can only remember it. And we can only remember it in the Present (furthermore, our memories are noticeably unreliable). There is no objective thing that we call the Past; it can’t be measured in any way; our only contact with it is in the Present.

And what is the Future - only a mental construct in the Present. We can’t experience the Future until it “becomes” the Present. Until then it only a hope and dream. We can project what the Future may be like, but we are considerably less accurate than when we remember the Past. There is no objective thing that we call the Future; it can’t be measured in any way; our only contact with it is in the Present.

That leaves us with only the Present - the ever changing Present. Time is an illusion we created to try and measure the rate of change of the Present. It’s always NOW. But it’s an ever changing NOW. In a effort to cope with the change, we have invented time. It’s a handy mental device that helps us deal with the higher order derivatives of the rate of change.

This change that we experience in the ever present Present does have a “direction.” Things change in the general direction of having greater entropy. Entropy is a measure of the amount of disorder in a system. That’s why when we measure time we find it restricted to one direction (unlike when we measure distance) - things are changing such that the overall system has more and more entropy.

Although the illusionary nature of time is the deep truth in this matter, it’s not particularly practical. To be totally in harmony with this truth, you’d need to wear a watch that always said “now”. But you’d be late for a lot of meetings…

Leigh Brasington
2005/05/04
Written in honor of Kurt Gödel, who also didn’t believe in Time (New Yorker ~ Feb 28, 2005, pg 80ff)

No it does not.

Albert Einstein said that time is just another dimension, a fourth one to go along with the up-down, side-side, forward-back we move through every day. Our understanding of time, Einstein said, is based on its relationship to our environment. Weirdly, the faster you travel, the slower time moves. The most radical interpretation of his theory: Past, present, and future are merely figments of our imagination, constructs built by our brains so that everything doesn’t seem to happen at once.
-http://www.socialtext.net/wired-mag/index.cgi?is_time_an_illusion

No it is not. You have shown no reason why the absence of time is necessitated by this quantum experiment. You are just asserting that time is absent and yet you are constantly speaking in reference to time in order to explain it: such as, the experiment is taking place, or the outcome of the experiment can be changed ect ect. Your argument necessarily requires the objective and meaningful existence of time in order to make any logical sense whatsoever. Otherwise the eraser effect cannot meaningfully take place; an effect cannot be changed. Your whole argument falls apart because you continuously shifting your premise from affirming the existence of time to affirming the non-existence of time. You are contradicting yourself since you frame your argument within the context of real objective change.

semantics are semantics. just because i use words that imply time does not mean that time exists and i am shifting any argument. it means the english language lacks the terms to communicate the idea properly.if you dont like that, take a logic course >_>

Potentiality requires the actual existence of a being before there can be such a thing as potentiality. Potentiality by itself is not a being. Being must precede potentiality; thus the potential universe requires the actual existence of a necessary existential cause, existing apart from the potential universe.

well again, because there was no time before the universe began the nature of whatever existed before the universe must have had the potentiality of the universe because without time nothing can change.

The potential was always there. Sill is there. Will always be there.

As for string theory, according to “Lee Smolin”, String theory is a hypothesis verging on mere conjecture, relying on the assumption of there being many dimensions for which there is no evidence. slate.com/id/2149598. so is relativity. thats why its called “Theoretical Physics”

 

[Soulewolf]

heres a more reliable source. If i find the specific passage in “the fabric of the cosmos” i will be sure to post it as well

nytimes.com/2004/01/01/opinion/the-time-we-thought-we-knew.html

i’d like to emphasize:

"Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher, recounts Einstein’s telling him that ‘‘the experience of the now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics.’’ And later, in a condolence letter to the widow of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein wrote: ‘‘In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me by just a little. That doesn’t mean anything. For we convinced physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent.’’ "

 

[MindOverMatter2]

semantics are semantics. just because i use words that imply time does not mean that time exists

You experience change just as much as you experience the fact that you exist and thus you have no choice but to speak of it. Your assertions are no different in quality to saying that existence is an illusion; its ridiculous.

and i am shifting any argument. it means the english language lacks the terms to communicate the idea properly.if you dont like that, take a logic course >_>

You denial of “development”, “Change”, "Dynamism"or “Effect”, has nothing to do with a limitation in the human language. It has something to do with your inability to conceive of a philosophy which respects all observed phenomenon. There is nothing in what you have said that either implies logically or follows necessarily from any true scientific theory.

The potential was always there. Sill is there. Will always be there.

Potentiality cannot exist without a actual necessary existential cause.

 

[JDaniel]

I can’t believe it…hes back.

Believe it!

 

[JDaniel]

not necessarily. causality implies time, which i do not believe exists.

Not necessarily. When St. Thomas speaks of (first) causality, he is speaking of a simultaneity - a superior causality, not an inferior one. Therefore, time, as we know it and perceive it, is related merely to the most mundane cause, i.e., local motion.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

again, change implies time, which i do not believe exists. so in an objective sense, no, change does not exist. think of the universe as a 0th dimensional point in which all things that will happen and have happened, do so simultaneously

What is it that you don’t believe exists? Time? Change? Or, both?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Simply saying it does not exist does not disprove the obvious fact that it does. In order to speak meaningfully of something happening there has to be change/potentiality.

MoM:

Moreover, we grew up; we witnessed ourselves changing, in that manner, over time. And, the time we observed was not a figment. It was slow and regular process. We didn’t create, or cause, ourselves. We witnessed ourselves, in a causal universe, only when we were old enough to do so.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Time, as we know it, is only an illusion. We usually think of time as having three parts - Past, Present, Future. But what is the Past - only a collection of memories. We can’t experience the Past, we can only remember it. And we can only remember it in the Present (furthermore, our memories are noticeably unreliable). There is no objective thing that we call the Past; it can’t be measured in any way; our only contact with it is in the Present.

And what is the Future - only a mental construct in the Present. We can’t experience the Future until it “becomes” the Present. Until then it only a hope and dream. We can project what the Future may be like, but we are considerably less accurate than when we remember the Past. There is no objective thing that we call the Future; it can’t be measured in any way; our only contact with it is in the Present.

That leaves us with only the Present - the ever changing Present. Time is an illusion we created to try and measure the rate of change of the Present. It’s always NOW. But it’s an ever changing NOW. In a effort to cope with the change, we have invented time. It’s a handy mental device that helps us deal with the higher order derivatives of the rate of change.

This change that we experience in the ever present Present does have a “direction.” Things change in the general direction of having greater entropy. Entropy is a measure of the amount of disorder in a system. That’s why when we measure time we find it restricted to one direction (unlike when we measure distance) - things are changing such that the overall system has more and more entropy.

Although the illusionary nature of time is the deep truth in this matter, it’s not particularly practical. To be totally in harmony with this truth, you’d need to wear a watch that always said “now”. But you’d be late for a lot of meetings…

This is very unfortunate, but, it’s a clear example that even smart people can sometimes not be. Time, here, is mis-defined. Time is a measurement. How does one measure a measurement? Past, Present and Future are merely words we use to describe positions on our “ruler of time”, our watches. We describe a train entering the mouth a tunnel by the use of such words. That’s all. If it were not for our brains, we wouldn’t have any trouble understanding this.

Yikes!

jd

 

[4Horsemen]

But in my humble thinking, and having read a smattering of books (lightweight stuff), I understand that time exists only on earth in order to measure things. However, when entering space out of earth’s orbit, time ceases to exist. An example I saw on video showed a set of twins, one who remained on earth for a long number of years (say 50) and the other who rode in the spaceship and left earth’s atmosphere beyond the speed of light for the same number of earth years (50 earth years). He returns not having aged while his twin is 50 years older. Anyhow, that’s how the Theory of Relativity was explained. Very elementary, but my point is that time ceases to exit, so it seems. (Yet science speaks of 4 dimensions. I’m sure there is more to the story).

Similarly, time is no llimitation of God. Everything is present. He sees our whole lives in a glance (so to speak) and all of history. He is transcendent and immanent. Time doesn’t exist for God.

 

[Soulewolf]

Potentiality cannot exist without a actual necessary existential cause.

first off i’m done arguing semantics.

secondly there can be no “cause” before the universe. either potentiality existed or it diddnt. since the universe is here, it obviously did.

ps man i have a lot to reply to lol. and hello Daniel.

 

[Soulewolf]

What is it that you don’t believe exists? Time? Change? Or, both?

jd

well if time doesnt exist objectivly, neither can change. Though we can observe change, i believe this is the brains way of “filtering” events so we do not view everything happening at once. Not that this is the reason for the way we view time, thats just the way i think it works.

My personal view of what the universe “looks like” is a 0th dimensional point within which there is no such thing as space or time. This means that everything we percieve to be past present and future “happens simultaniously”.This idea is based upon the phenomena of quantum entanglement (for space) and the quantum eraser experiment (for time).

Since nothing can move faster than the speed of light, because of entanglement, this means that either information is moving infinitely fast, or in objective reality, everything is still touching. Or if you want it a bit more New-Agey, “Everything is One.” Except this is literally >_>

I explained the Quantum eraser experiment in an earlier post.

 

[Soulewolf]

MoM:

Moreover, we grew up; we witnessed ourselves changing, in that manner, over time. And, the time we observed was not a figment. It was slow and regular process. We didn’t create, or cause, ourselves. We witnessed ourselves, in a causal universe, only when we were old enough to do so.

jd

Witnessing an event is not proof of its objective existence. If the brain can create images, sounds, etc… that dont exist (such as in schizophrenia and hallucinogens) then why is it so far fetched that everyones brain has the capacity to break down information in such a way that it does not reflect on objective reality?

 

[Soulewolf]

This is very unfortunate, but, it’s a clear example that even smart people can sometimes not be. Time, here, is mis-defined. Time is a measurement. How does one measure a measurement? Past, Present and Future are merely words we use to describe positions on our “ruler of time”, our watches. We describe a train entering the mouth a tunnel by the use of such words. That’s all. If it were not for our brains, we wouldn’t have any trouble understanding this.

Yikes!

jd

heh well i dunno. i think this is rather unfortunate for another reason.

In physics, time was considered an essence (much like space. the essence which makes things seem seperate) or dimension, through which movement and change are possible.

the 0th dimension can a point.
the 1st the first dimension is a line (length)
the 2nd dimension can be visualized as a rectangle (length and width)
the 3rd dimension can be visualized as a cube (length, width and depth)
the 4th dimension is time (movement) this can be visualized as a rotating cube.

We were presumed to exist in the 4th dimension.

Now, more and more of the scientific community is convinced that time does not actually exist. This started with Einstein and his theory of relativity and is now starting to be backed up by quantum experimentation.

What this implies is not that change doesnt exist, but that everything that has happened, will happen, and is happening are “happening” at “one time”. This means that you and i exist at the same point as the big bang. That is to say, you and i exist within “the universe”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

secondly there can be no “cause” before the universe. either potentiality existed or it didn’t. since the universe is here, it obviously did.

Firstly; you say that nothing could exist before the universe. But what does that mean unless you are saying that time cannot exist before time; the very thing that you deny exists? If you are not talking about a real objective change before which there was no change, then what is your justification for saying that there was no cause before the universe? You keep contradicting yourself. You are a very inconsistent thinker.

Secondly, I never said that change existed before change. I said that being must precede potentiality; but not in the sense of “time”, but rather in the sense of ontology. Potentiality cannot exist without an actual being causing it to exist. This cause does not have to come before the universe, in the sense of time, so-long as its an immaterial non-physical cause. So long as the cause is not identical to the effect, one can logically posit a non-physical cause as existing simultaneously to the effect. Otherwise the potential universe cannot exist, since it cannot cause itself from nothing. The universe has to be something before it can be the cause of something. Potentiality is not a being in its own right; and without an actual being to give rise to the potentiality of something, potentiality is nothing at all and is meaningless, and out of nothing comes nothing.

Its seems to me that logic is unimportant to you, just-so-long as get the results you desire.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What this implies is not that change doesnt exist, but that everything that has happened, will happen, and is happening are “happening” at “one time”. This means that you and i exist at the same point as the big bang. That is to say, you and i exist within “the universe”.

Then everything that you have said is irrelevant, since if there is change, then there must be a necessary existential being that actualises the principle of change. It doesn’t make any difference whether it happens all at once or not; so long as it “happens”, your argument falls apart. We experience that relative aspect of the universe where change evidently exists and thus the principle of change applies. It makes no difference to say that if we look at the universe from some other dimensions we will not see change; because this is only true relative to that particular dimension or point or view; and does not apply to the existential ontological properties of the whole. Change is not an illusion; it is a real phenomenon of the universe that can only be perceived or experienced by beings from a specific the point of view of a particular dimension of the universe. But I agree that if we looked at the universe as a whole we would not see any change, but only because we would be viewing the universe from a point of view that included all the change that will ever exist in one moment.

But this is not grounds for saying that change does not exist (which is quite irrational since it is self evident that change does exist); especially if relativity is true. The question is do you really understand what you talking about when Einstein speaks about relativity? I don’t think that you do.

 

[Soulewolf]

Firstly; you say that nothing could exist before the universe. But what does that mean unless you are saying that time cannot exist before time; the very thing that you deny exists? If you are not talking about a real objective change before which there was no change, then what is your justification for saying that there was no cause before the universe? You keep contradicting yourself. You are a very inconsistent thinker.
no i diddnt say nothing could exist before the universe. i said:
If the universe exists, then before the universe existed there had to be the potential for the universe to have been created. which upon retrospect is wrong.

In reality (the one without time >_>) the big bang always existed, exists now, and always will exist. Now and the big bang are two parallel points existing simultaniously. to ask the question what was before the universe is absurd and i will have to answer the same way stephen hawking does. “Nothing”. (NOW i said nothing existed before the universe)

There is no contradiction in stating that our observation of the universe now (which is a parallel point to the big bang) allowed the big bang to exist. you can ask “what created the universe?” and i will say with a straight face “I did” meaning it completely literally (haha imma have to tell my friends that one)

Secondly, I never said that change existed before change. I said that being must precede potentiality; but not in the sense of “time”, but rather in the sense of ontology

no. you dont get it. Nothing can “cause” anything outside of time. All events are static. It wasnt that the big bang was triggered by something, it was that the point at which the big bang came into existence has ALWAYS existed. Continues to exist, will continue to exist, and will exist in the “future” at a point parallel to what ever your current “now list” is. Observed (relative) time exists. Objective (universal) time does not.