January 4, 2005
-
The idea's in this post were first brought to my attention by Tim, but
I didn't like them at that point, it somehow seemed incongruous. Left
one to many of those things that, though they aren't contradictions,
they don't seem to fit the puzzle.It was Coker (to give credit where credit is due) who solved it. He had
no idea about my previous discussion with Tim, and yet presented the
solution to me.Time is nothing but the measure of change. It is the future becoming
the past. When nothing changes, you are in infinity, and there is no
longer time. One may propose (and believe me, I did): 'There must still
be a duration passing while nothing changes.' However this isn't so.
Take the current as an example. Think, for a moment, how long the
current instant is, and every time you get close, divide it by two. It
regresses into infinity. The current then, is nothing. No change, no
duration. We could try to say that perhaps there is a duration, that we
simply cannot perceive because there is no change, but this would not
work either. As soon as the duration of an event gets longer, there is
a change, one moment to the next. It is still change, even though it is
very little change.I guess the next question is: 'how does God work into this?' because
one cannot talk about time without explaining God, the one who is
unaffected by time.
*As an aside, some say God is within time (like Open Theists). However
this would mean that God began existing when time began existing, and
thus he was not around to create it; begging the question: how did time
come into being? This would only be answerable by something else
creating it, but then we have another God on our hands, and must
discuss how this one could be outside of time.*
Back to the issue at hand. This is where we start getting sketchy, but
bear with me. Time, as the measure of change, is relative. If it was
possible for a change to happen that does not effect me, then it would
make time pass for it's effective range, and not for me. In this way
time (conceivably) could pass differently for different places (not
just seem to pass differently, but actually pass differently).God then, is like this: all-knowing, all-powerful, and unchanging. If
the power and knowledge of God make it so that his effect on the world
does not take any change on his part, then time could be infinite for
God. No future, no past. Nothing changes, and so no time passes. His
whole existence is in one infinite moment, and his effect works from
there.This can go many places, but I will leave it there. Any counter-examples are welcome.
Comments (5)
"Time is nothing but the measure of change" "Time is nothing but the measure of change" "Time is nothing but the measure of change". I've hear it said so many times ( no pun intended...
. I think that definition is a bit much to presupose. And i don't want some crappy copout like "well what do YOU think time is" (in some snarky voice) but honestly,
why do you propse that time is the measurement of change?
Duration is a form of change. From one bit of duration to the next, there is a chnage, because the value of the duration is differant, it is changed.
Duration, and thus time, cannot be taken away from change. Now is the differance between the past, and the future. It has no substance. Time is change, because when there is no change, the future is not moving into the past, because nothing is moving, nothing is changing.
aaahhh... but mr. Jones. The same could be said about oxyen, and water. check it out
Water is Oxygen, because when there is no Oxygen, there is not water.
but clearly we know that water also has hydrogen.
make sense?
and i would also like to propose a different agruement (probably less though out but seemingly relatively simple, to show how that definition off time cannot exist.)
Here is the conclusion: If ever Time, Always Time.
First it is neccessary to show that there is time. Done. you didn't know what this line was to say before you read it. (knowledge changed, time passed). Time existed then (and i'm sure we would all agree time exists now).
Now, i think you implied that Time didn't always exist. but this cannot be the case, simply by the definiton of the word. "Time is the measure of change". This is because there is a difference between time not existing and time existing. And therefore The change from the former to the latter is well... change... and therefore time. Thus time would have had to exist prior to it being created.... which is silly.
But i kind of understand this to lead time always existing... which would mean we would never get to the present... balh balh balh... balh=blah.
So i cannot accept your defintion of time.
errr none of this make systematic sense. sorry aron hopefully you can piece it together enough to understand what's being said (even if you disagree). I'm outa practice :S.
oh and on a different note, am i in your room for sure? that would be great with me, if that's what you/matt wanted?
anyway see you sunday.
Ya, you're with me.
I find it ironic that your proof for the existence of time (though I would just say this is self-evident) hinged on change "knowledge changed, time passed". Haha, I know that really doesn't effect the rest of the argument, but I thought it entertaining to point out.
Second, your counterexample doesn't do the job, from my understanding of it. Why must time have existed before time existed? The first change, and thus the beginning of time, is the move from no time to time. Granted, this would require a force acting from a changeless state, but we have this in God. There need not be an infinite regression of time.
Finally, I was showing not only that change is a part of time, but that time is nothing but change. If you take the oxygen out of water, you will still be looking at a bunch of hydrogen. If you take away the change, there is no time, and no by-product of time. There is nothing. If I am simply missing it, let me know, but it seems to me that change is the only thing making up time due to the lack of time, or anything else when change is taken out of the equation.
no no. see the change from no time to time, is just a silly thought. Let me see if i could explain.... perhpas simply because if you adress a time of timelessness... or rather you cannot identify a moment where there was no time. Because as soon as you do that... it because in time, because it's a moment.
Or how about this. Change requires a before and after... i think we are goign to simply have to talk about this. fbut anyway as i was saying, For change there needs to be a before and after. (of which both are different) change is not simply the after or final consiquence but it encompasses the whole process, (because change is not an instant, it's a sequence) For example if we take. 1+2=3. (one being the original state, 2 being the element causeing the change and 3 the final result). if we simply said one, or three, there is no change, but you have to say one changed to three (and you might even add because of 2). So if you look at the same thing with time. it would be something like this... There was no time then God added time, then there was time. so...
No time + God (adding time)=time.
But there is a problem here. See if you accept that change is this whole process and not simply the final result (like in math) then time would have began at the beginning. thus time would have begun when there was no time... and that's an obvious problem.
make any sense?
Comments are closed.