[_ Old Earth _] What is TIME?

[Deavonreye]

but did you not say that God must function within time?

think about the big bang says when it started there was no time.no space, no energy.

if god is bound within time then he or she must be within the limits of the known laws of said universe.

Well, I disagree with that theory of the Big Bang that says time and space began then. It isn't possible because a catalyst had to start off the process, and that takes time to do.

And yes, I would say that god is also limited by time. He must also operate within time. Any action he does must include the product of "time".

 

[jasoncran]

Well, I disagree with that theory of the Big Bang that says time and space began then. It isn't possible because a catalyst had to start off the process, and that takes time to do.

And yes, I would say that god is also limited by time. He must also operate within time. Any action he does must include the product of "time".

then it will never end sooner or late it must boil down something came from nothing and then there would have to be prime mover.

the chicken or the egg.

either its the eternal universe or eternal god.

i know you dont believe in steady state, but stated that to make a point.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Well, I disagree with that theory of the Big Bang that says time and space began then. It isn't possible because a catalyst had to start off the process, and that takes time to do.

And yes, I would say that god is also limited by time. He must also operate within time. Any action he does must include the product of "time".

See, I agree with your first premise - time and space did not begin with the big bang.

But I disagree - God lives outside of space and time - I am sure of it. I came to this conclusion as I listened to a physicist on "TED" online give a talk. If I can find a link to it, I'll post it. (He was not making a case for God, but he did describe some things that triggered my thought).

 

[Deavonreye]

Please feel free to post the link.

Again, anything that moves must also have time in the equation.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Please feel free to post the link.

Again, anything that moves must also have time in the equation.

Even a spirit being? That is, an entity with no mass, no matter?

 

[Deavonreye]

Even a spirit being? That is, an entity with no mass, no matter?

I still must say, "yes". If it is stationary for eternity, with no thought, . . . there is still the time that passes while it is in that state. If it views humans doing something. . . time passes.

 

[Pizzaguy]

If I can find the stupid link, I think you'll see that this guy says no.

Without mass - that is the secret. I did a search, but can't find it. I don't remember what the TITLE was! But I am sure it was on TED.

TED: Ideas worth spreading

 

[Tailgunner]

If I can find the stupid link, I think you'll see that this guy says no.

Without mass - that is the secret. I did a search, but can't find it. I don't remember what the TITLE was! But I am sure it was on TED.

TED: Ideas worth spreading

Pizzaguy, it might be better if you posted the actual URL to that site. I've found NO posted links on this site that work. Neither does yours. Try it by posting the web address. I'd like to see it.

TG

 

[Oats]

I don't believe in Time

I think of it more as a recorder to us

Because we as Humans forget and remember we say something is Old

But to God our Lord, perhaps, all things are fresh to him.

He is not limited by time, but can use it, perhaps

When one knows all things to come and is the cause of all things, how can he be affected by time


-----

THINK ABOUT IT!

If I know everything that will happen, in the fullness of its essence

Then when I would occur it would not be a new event, although it would be a new event

This does not mean I can experience it , but...

better put


Imagine living solely in the moment, that contained all unending moments...

 

[Sparkey]

In the past I've tried to approach this subject (God being governed by Time) by considering the nature of the quantity called "infinity". I misspoke myself and called it a number and was surprised to find that the guy who corrected me was right.

Infinity is a concept and not a number.

But my concept (or whatever one may want to call it) is that "Infinity minus X = infinity". Seems to me that the only physical representations that even approximate stuff like this are event horizons on black holes, the "instant" before the big bang and perhaps stuff yet to be discovered by the Hadron Super Collider. But even that doesn't come close to a reasonable description of God. The equation 'infinity - x = infintiy" would mean that it is just as difficult (or conversely, just as easy) for God, being infinite, to do anything large as anything small. It isn't about energy expenditure. This lines up with my understanding of Scripture too. "And God said - Light, be, And light was." (The J. B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible) The thing that gives me reason to stop and wonder is that even his 'smallest' act takes the same degree of effort. Not a single sparrow falls that escapes his notice, hence my signature: You are worht more than many sparrows.

Somewhere in my study of Hebrew I've heard the meaning of one of his titles (can't find it right off hand) given as "The Altogether Other" --meaning that He is vastly different than us. Seems to me that Einsteinian Relativity teaches that time is bound into creation (the universe). That does not mean that it binds the Creator.

Earlier in thread I may have posted what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (Pronounced 'chicks send me high' according to the Professor) wrote on the subject of 'Flow'. I refreshed myself and quote here his response to the question, "How does it feel to be in "the flow"?

1. Completely involved, focused, concentrating - with this either due to innate curiosity or as the result of training.
2. Sense of ecstasy - of being outside everyday reality.
3. Great inner clarity - knowing what needs to be done and how well it is going.
4. Knowing the activity is doable - that the skills are adequate, and neither anxious or bored.
5. Sense of serenity - no worries about self, feeling of growing beyond the boundaries of ego - afterwards feeling of transcending ego in ways not thought possible.
6. Timelessness - thouroughly focused on present, don't notice time passing.
7. Intrinsic motivation - whatever produces "flow" becomes its own reward.

So, I'm trying to approach understanding from various angles, personal experiences, teachings about "Flow" which is almost a zen-like quality and from trying to understand by what nature and the universe teaches, but mostly I wonder about the One who says, "Light Be!" (and Light sprung into existence through obedience to His word.)

~Sparrow

 

[Pizzaguy]

Pizzaguy, it might be better if you posted the actual URL to that site. I've found NO posted links on this site that work. Neither does yours. Try it by posting the web address. I'd like to see it.

TG

TED: Ideas worth spreading

THis is so stupid. I posted it again as a typed out link and this site converted it, then the converted version would not work.

Let's do it this way:

www dot ted dot com

Now, YOU convert THAT into a real URL!

 

[Deavonreye]

Question. . . . . Why do you think "god is outside of time"? Is it just because he SEEMS to be able to see the future [which may be subject to interpretation]?

As for spirits, I will still insist that, irregardless of mass, they are also still affected by time. If it moves in "the ether", its travel will still require an equation of time. A spirit would still be unable to "time travel". The past has already happened. The future has not.

 

[stovebolts]

Please feel free to post the link.

Again, anything that moves must also have time in the equation.

I think we need to go back and define what time itself is.

Time is the measurement between two objects, not the movement. If we look at Eternity, it has no end and has no beginning. Simply put, it just is. True eternity is now and if you think about it, there is always now, always has been now, and always will be now. Now is not bound by time, let alone movement.

When we think of movement, what we are doing is measuring the distance between objects based on predictable increments. Take our watches for example. What is a second, a minute or an hour based on? It's based on the distance between the sun and the earth. This goes back to the earliest sun dials.

 

[Sparkey]

Hi Steve, and welcome.

You've stated that time, at its most basic level is a measurement of distance because we measure distance by a ratio. If it takes Aunt Martha 1 hour to drive to visit her nephews she is one hour away (given that she travels at the same rate). When we consider a train that travels at 60 miles per hour we could say that the train travels 60 miles in the same amount of time that it takes Aunt Martha to cross the distance between her and her kids.

Okay, time is part of a ratio. Distance is defined in terms of time. Distance is equal to rate multiplied by time. (d = r x t). Can we therefore say that time is a contrivience of man used to measure stuff? The concept breaks down when we look at the behavior of matter on very small scales similar to Newtonian physics and the science of motion. Defining time in terms of matter and distance helps but I don't feel like I'm all that close to a concise understanding of the real concept. We are told (and I believe it true) that as an object with mass approaches the speed of light, time slows down for that object --and its mass increases. Time is interlinked with matter in an inexplicable manner. It is more than a measurement of distance.

Hmmm... how long does it take for me to move from point a to point b? Depends on how fast I'm going, doesn't it? Speed is defined by a ratio of time also. At best, so far, we've established that time is part of a measurement ratio. Seems to me that we need to go further in our attempt to define time still. Some use the rate of the speed of light for this purpose, some may try to define time by the oscillation of a quartz crystal. I've heard about (but don't understand) atomic clocks that measure time based on the movement of electrons in the atom? I think that's what they do anyway. Time is used to measure distance. How long it takes to move. It's more than a tool for our measurements because Time, seen from that point of view, isn't passive but interlinked with matter and effected (affected?) by motion. An earlier post pointed out that for a proton, traveling at the speed of light, time could be said to be standing still. I don't know about that, lacking the experience. To me, knowledge (true knowledge) is not thought but thought applied to experience. I think that I lack the capacity of understanding time on the level that I want because I am a creature bound by it.

While studying time and trying to determine what it is exactly others have asked, "Is it a dimension?" Is it a construct of man's observation? Is time the thing that gives us a sense of order when we percieve change? I like the idea that time emerges from motion and when Hubble understood that the universe is expanding that idea made more sense (to me).

We may have made the concept of time more complicated then what it really is. Measurement of time started early on in human development. There are plenty of clues in every language in the greetings and the meetings. Time of the day is related to the position of sun in the sky or its absence thereof. There is dawn, sunrise, early morning, morning, mid morning, noon, afternoon, late afternoon, evening, sunset, dusk, night and mid night. Then there are years, months, weeks, based on earth’s yearly orbit around the sun and the changing seasons. The use of units like seconds and minutes which are radial angle measurements in geometry points toward the original connection of time measurements to radial motion of astronomical objects across the sky. Once we started using clocks, watches, and then digital time we got completely disconnected from the original method of measurement and time developed a life of its own.

~Sparrow

 

[Sparkey]

Off topic but I really do appreciate this conversation because of another abstract concept that I've noticed 'bout me. I think (process my thought) on the outstoke. Using an analogy of a compression engine --many people, actually most people, process information on the intake. When I do my data collection though I don't do much more than collect it. Afterwards I try to apply analysis but am busy to sort and store. It's when I try to express the stuff that I've collected that the thoughtful processing begins.

So where others have the advantage of being able to think about stuff as they collect information my process takes time and a whole lotta work, hence my need for amicable conversation. Much appreciated, guys. Thank you.
BACK TO TOPIC:

Did God define Time when He spoke? "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Might it be that He was using his creative power then (too) ? I'm a full time student these days and need to run off to school, the grandchildren are visiting this afternoon so I'll check back for responses to my post (one post down from this one) tomorrow. Blessings to you for your help here (and my thanks again).

~Sparrow

 

[Pizzaguy]

(Post 19) I tend to lean toward this explanation with a bit simpler view. Time, in essence is the distance between two objects.

As we understand time, it is based on the distance between objects in the cosmos and our time is derived from those measurements.

If two objects are not moving, it does not mean that time does not exist simply because there is still distance, and since time is based on the distance between objects, movement is only an expression of the journey.

For a simple example, there are appox 24 hours in one day. But what is considered a day in it's simplist form but the distance between two points?

This seems to agree somewhat with Einsteins theory of relativity that we all learned in grammer school, you know, the one where the space ship is travelling a million miles an hour for a century, yet the person inside only ages a year in terms of earthly time.

I could not disagree more. Time is NOT a measurement of the distance between two points - that would be DISTANCE.

And how is a day a "distance between two points"????

And I totally disagree with your Einstein comparison. The Theory of Relativity asserts a relationship between time and speed, agreed, but I don't see how you make the stretch that this has to do with time being related to the distance between two objects.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Take our watches for example. What is a second, a minute or an hour based on? It's based on the distance between the sun and the earth. This goes back to the earliest sun dials.

How is a second based on distance between sun and earth?

 

[Pizzaguy]

Time is interlinked with matter in an inexplicable manner. It is more than a measurement of distance.

Now that I agree with.

While studying time and trying to determine what it is exactly others have asked, "Is it a dimension?"
I think it is.

Is it a construct of man's observation?
No, time passes even if we are not there to observe it.

Is time the thing that gives us a sense of order when we percieve change?
Yes, but does that help us define it?

I like the idea that time emerges from motion and when Hubble understood that the universe is expanding that idea made more sense (to me).
I don't think that time emerges from motion, remember, time is said to SLOW with GREAT SPEED. This makes your point contradictory, doesn't it?

 

[Deavonreye]

Good obvservations, Pizzaguy.

Time can be a difficult concept to consider. It makes me want to take a quantum physics class.

 

[Sparkey]

Now that I agree with.

While studying time and trying to determine what it is exactly others have asked, "Is it a dimension?"
I think it is.

Is it a construct of man's observation?
No, time passes even if we are not there to observe it.

Is time the thing that gives us a sense of order when we percieve change?
Yes, but does that help us define it?

I like the idea that time emerges from motion and when Hubble understood that the universe is expanding that idea made more sense (to me).
I don't think that time emerges from motion, remember, time is said to SLOW with GREAT SPEED. This makes your point contradictory, doesn't it?

I quoted others and was not making any point other than "Others have said." Your opinion is welcome, sir - but not the debate.

Here then, another quote about time:

"...I give you the mausoleum of all hope and desire...I give it to you not that you may remember time, but that you might forget it now and then for a moment and not spend all of your breath trying to conquer it. Because no battle is ever won he said. They are not even fought. The field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools."
— William Faulkner (The Sound and the Fury)

At the turn of last century Tailorism and Fordism brought changes and the birth of the industrial revolution. Mankind lost track of time in the battle to use science to make all thing "efficient". Instead of consulting the feeling on one's gut, we grew to know that it was time to eat when the clock struck noon. We knew it was time to go to bed when the clock told us. We moved away from our inner timings and distanced ourselves. It is similar to how many have distanced themselves from the work of their hands. What is being produced (to borrow a line from "Pretty Woman") when all we do is buy a corporation, divide it and sell it's parts? There is benefit in returning to our basis for understanding especially when trying to grasp basic concepts and defining time in terms of the geometric distance that the earth travels in its rotation around the sun is pretty basic.

Please be aware that I quoted a larger conversation - from timephysics.com and if you really want to address the comments there I would suggest that you go there. If I did not do a proper job of summarizing the blog I quoted, I would encourage you to go there and bring back a better summary to contribute to this conversation. Thanks