F
Freddy
Guest
If something changes at a given rate then that is a characteristic of the thing itself. It’s not a characteristic of the method used for measuring that change.
- Status
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Irrelevant. Point is time has properties and thus had to have a cause for these properties yet STT asserts time is the uncaused cause
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
It is not consistent with the Catholic belief in Divine simplicity. Ultimately it is, what David Bentley Hart describes as a demiurge
F
Freddy
Guest
Now it has properties as well as characteristics? What are the properties?AlNg:
Irrelevant. Point is time has properties and thus had to have a cause for these properties yet STT asserts time is the uncaused cause
A
Aquinas11
Guest
You’ve asserted time has two characteristics
(1) a measurement
(2) of a rate of change
While simultaneously asserting it has no characteristics
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
‘A measurement’ is not a characteristic. A specific length would be a characteristic of something (it’s a metre long). And how long it remained in one state would be another (an hour). It’s not a description of something. It’s how we describe something.Freddy:
You’ve asserted time has two characteristics
(1) a measurement
(2) of a rate of change
While simultaneously asserting it has no characteristics
And time doesn’t have a ‘rate of change’ as a characteristic. If it did I could ask you what it was. Which I may as well do: What is the ‘rate of change’ of time. You said it’s a characteristic of time so it must have one.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Clearly you’re not familiar with quantum physics
F
Freddy
Guest
Shall I expound…
Time is simply a measurement of the rate of change of something. Let’s call the something X. The rate of change of X is one of the characteristics of X. It is not one of tbe characteristics of time itself.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Again you’re clearly unfamiliar with quantum physics.
F
Freddy
Guest
Very few people on the planet are. I’m certainly not. And I would bet that you’re not either. But maybe you’ve read something that is applicable so perhaps you could share it. Would it tell us that time has characteristics and properties?Freddy:
Clearly you’re not familiar with quantum physics
F
Freddy
Guest
I’ve found something. . . .
'Julian Barbour, a British physicist, describes time as “a succession of pictures, a succession of snapshots, changing continuously one into another. I’m looking at you; you’re nodding your head. Without that change, we wouldn’t have any notion of time.”
“Isaac Newton,” Barbour noted, “insisted that even if absolutely nothing at all happened, time would be passing, and that I believe is completely wrong.”
'To Barbour, change is real, but time is not. Time is only a reflection of change. From change, our brains construct a sense of time as if it were flowing. As he puts it, all the “evidence we have for time is encoded in static configurations, which we see or experience subjectively, all of them fitting together to make time seem linear.” ’ https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
My emphasis. . . .
'Julian Barbour, a British physicist, describes time as “a succession of pictures, a succession of snapshots, changing continuously one into another. I’m looking at you; you’re nodding your head. Without that change, we wouldn’t have any notion of time.”
“Isaac Newton,” Barbour noted, “insisted that even if absolutely nothing at all happened, time would be passing, and that I believe is completely wrong.”
'To Barbour, change is real, but time is not. Time is only a reflection of change. From change, our brains construct a sense of time as if it were flowing. As he puts it, all the “evidence we have for time is encoded in static configurations, which we see or experience subjectively, all of them fitting together to make time seem linear.” ’ https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
My emphasis. . . .
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Well then probably not best to make bold assertions about the meaning of time.
I already shared it
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
If you could do so again I’d appreciate it.Freddy:
Well then probably not best to make bold assertions about the meaning of time.
I already shared it
F
Freddy
Guest
Perhaps you’re confusing ‘a time’ with time itself. We can say when a process starts and finishes and if it lasts an hour then that is information we can store and retrieve and pass on to anyone. But that hour doesn’t exist in itself. Only the change exists. There is no ‘hour’. It’s simply the change between one sunrise and another divided by (for whatever reason) 24. And time doesn’t exist in itself either. It’s only a method of measuring change.
As per the cut ‘n’ paste above, Newton was of the opinion that if nothing existed, if there were no changes, then somehow time would still exist. A clever guy was Isaac, but he didn’t get everything right. Although you seem to favour his viewpoint. . . .
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
You already conceded you’re unfamiliar with quantum physics
F
Freddy
Guest
Neither of us are up to speed with quantum physics to debate the matter. The problem as I see it is that you have made a claim that time has properties (or characteristics). Vague hand waving in the direction of quantum theory doesn’t resolve that.Freddy:
You already conceded you’re unfamiliar with quantum physics
I may be wrong. You may be right. But you’ll need something more than ‘you’re unfamiliar with quantum physics’.
If you actually want to discuss quantum physics then you’re in the wrong forum. If you want to give me properties (plural) of time then you’re in the right thread. . …
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
First demonstrate the existence of the (or a) multiverse. In the meantime, I will stick with the universe we are in and eternity.
- Status