Miracles

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So boxing, mattbballman's arguments on the Philosophy board were nonsensical and incoherent?

In which thread?

After all if I'm traveling at the speed of light I no longer experience time - even while others in the universe do still experience time.

This is not quite right. It's not as if the Pause button is hit for you, while everyone else goes on as if nothing happens, and then you are un-paused at the end of the journey. There is no "while" here, as the word "while" implies that an interval of time is passing. There is no interval of time passing. You are not simply frozen while everyone else does their own thing. There is literally no time between the start of your trip and the end of your trip when you travel at the speed of light relative to other things in the universe.

Perhaps one could say that God is dimensionless?

Possibly, but that would carry its own set of problems for Classical Theology.

[seer]

In which thread?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...uestion/page38

This is not quite right. It's not as if the Pause button is hit for you, while everyone else goes on as if nothing happens, and then you are un-paused at the end of the journey. There is no "while" here, as the word "while" implies that an interval of time is passing. There is no interval of time passing. You are not simply frozen while everyone else does their own thing. There is literally no time between the start of your trip and the end of your trip when you travel at the speed of light relative to other things in the universe.

But does time still exist for me even though I do not experience it, even though time is not passing? I remember Stephen Hawkins once suggesting that at the edge of a black hole that time is static.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...uestion/page38

Yep, in that thread, Matt made some assertions which I found to be incoherent, and I replied that they were so in my posts.

But does time still exist for me even though I do not experience it, even though time is not passing? I remember Stephen Hawkins once suggesting that at the edge of a black hole that time is static.

Yes, time still exists, despite the reference frame of a lightspeed observer. It's akin to looking at a cylinder perfectly end-on. The fact that you only perceive a circle, cannot observe the depth hidden behind the base of the cylinder, does not imply that this depth ceases to exist.

As to Black Holes, Hawking was likely discussing the event horizon. According to current models of the phenomenon, the gravitational field at the event horizon of a Black Hole is so strong that it causes matter to accelerate very quickly toward the speed of light. This results in a mathematical singularity, which basically means "we don't know what's going on at this point." One possibility is that the matter is converted into energy during the approach to the event horizon and actually achieves lightspeed. If that is the case, then the resultant energy would be traversing a null geodesic through spacetime. Using my cylinder analogy, those particles are basically observing spacetime end-on, and cannot see the dimension behind the base.

[JimL]

Time is just a dimension of measure. It doesn't move or change or flow any more than distance does.

So time, like distance, is a dimension of measure in space? So in what sense do they differ? If "distance" is a measure of an certain extent through space, what is time a measure of? Itself?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So time, like distance, is a dimension of measure in space? So in what sense do they differ? If "distance" is a measure of an certain extent through space, what is time a measure of? Itself?

Time is a measure of a certain extent through spacetime. The primary differences between time and spatial dimensions are that time seems to have a preferred direction, defined by entropy; and that our perception is limited to single events in a sequence according to that preferred direction.

[JimL]

Time is a measure of a certain extent through spacetime. The primary differences between time and spatial dimensions are that time seems to have a preferred direction, defined by entropy; and that our perception is limited to single events in a sequence according to that preferred direction.

If i said that distance is a measure of a certain extent through distance, that wouldn't make sense would it. So how does it make sense to say that time is a measure of a certain extent through time? To call it spacetime, rather than time, is to acknowledge that there is no such thing as time itself, no? Even Einstein who came up with the concept of spacetime believed that time itself is an illusion.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

If i said that distance is a measure of a certain extent through distance, that wouldn't make sense would it. So how does it make sense to say that time is a measure of a certain extent through time?

I didn't say time is a measure of a certain extent through time. I said time is a measure of spacetime.

To call it spacetime, rather than time, is to acknowledge that there is no such thing as time itself, no?

No. It is to acknowledge that time is a subset of spacetime.

Even Einstein who came up with the concept of spacetime believed that time itself is an illusion.

Not in the manner you are implying, he didn't. Einstein believed that the passage of time is illusory, as do all B-Theorists.

(And, incidentally, it was Minkowski who first formulated the idea of spacetime, though he did so on the basis of Einstein's Special Relativity.)

[JimL]

I didn't say time is a measure of a certain extent through time. I said time is a measure of spacetime.

Okay then, why do you say that "distance" is a measure of a certain extent through "space," rather than a measure of a certain extent through "spacetime?"

No. It is to acknowledge that time is a subset of spacetime.

Okay, but then space would be a subset of spacetime as well, so why do you say that "distance" is only a measure through "space" and that "time" is a measure of a certain extent through "spacetime?"

Not in the manner you are implying, he didn't. Einstein believed that the passage of time is illusory, as do all B-Theorists.

Which would make time an illusion, no? Afterall, what is time if there is no passage of time?

(And, incidentally, it was Minkowski who first formulated the idea of spacetime, though he did so on the basis of Einstein's Special Relativity.)

Okay.

[seer]

Yep, in that thread, Matt made some assertions which I found to be incoherent, and I replied that they were so in my posts.

Really?

Yes, time still exists, despite the reference frame of a lightspeed observer. It's akin to looking at a cylinder perfectly end-on. The fact that you only perceive a circle, cannot observe the depth hidden behind the base of the cylinder, does not imply that this depth ceases to exist.

So time could exist for God even if He doesn't experience it? Like our light speed traveler time could be static to God.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Okay, but then space would be a subset of spacetime as well, so why do you say that "distance" is only a measure through "space" and that "time" is a measure of a certain extent through "spacetime?"

Space is a subset of spacetime. It's completely accurate to say that distance is a measure of a certain extent through spacetime. Elapsed time is a measure of displacement between points in the temporal dimension, just as distance is a measure of displacement between points in spatial dimensions.

Which would make time an illusion, no? Afterall, what is time if there is no passage of time?

No, it makes the passage of time illusory. Think of a film clip, for a moment. The passage of time in a film clip is completely illusory. Each frame of the film is coextant-- the first frame does not cease to exist when it is no longer on the screen and the second frame is viewed; similarly the final frame exists even when it is not yet on the screen. It is a trick of our perception which makes it seem like there is motion on the screen, when in fact we are simply looking at a succession of still frames. However, there does remain a sequential ordering of those still frames.

Actual time is exactly the same. Past moments do not cease to exist, nor are future moments non-existent. It is a trick of our perception which makes it seem like time is passing. While individual moments do seem to fall along a particular sequence of order (aligned to increasing entropy), all moments in time are equally co-extant. It is only the fact that we are restricted to perceiving time moment-by-moment which gives us the impression that time is passing, just as it is only the fact that we are restricted to seeing a film frame-by-frame which gives us the impression that there is motion in the movie.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Really?

Yes. Go ahead and read my exchanges with Matt. Quite early on, I referred to the idea of "existing timelessly" as incoherent, and a large part of our subsequent conversation has been an attempt to give a cogent definition to this concept so that we might discuss the notion.

So time could exist for God even if He doesn't experience it? Like our light speed traveler time could be static to God.

Yes, although this would imply a God which is subservient to the nature of the cosmos, rather than the reverse, and I don't think that you would intend this property for your concept of God.

[seer]

Yes. Go ahead and read my exchanges with Matt. Quite early on, I referred to the idea of "existing timelessly" as incoherent, and a large part of our subsequent conversation has been an attempt to give a cogent definition to this concept so that we might discuss the notion.

Perhaps you can school me. A lot of this stuff is over my head. Wouldn't it all depend on what theory of time one held? I mean would it be incoherent in the B-theory of time.

Yes, although this would imply a God which is subservient to the nature of the cosmos, rather than the reverse, and I don't think that you would intend this property for your concept of God.

Well no, I'm just pointing to a possible example where our light speed traveler, would be in a real sense, timeless, even though time still existed for him. So in this model we have time existing side by side with the timeless, and it is not incoherent.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Perhaps you can school me. A lot of this stuff is over my head.

No worries. The concepts are very confusing, and it can be tough to wrap your head around them. I'll do my best to explain anything which is unclear.

Wouldn't it all depend on what theory of time one held? I mean would it be incoherent in the B-theory of time.

The idea of "timeless existence" seems incoherent regardless of one's preferred model for Time. Whether you're an A-Theorist or a B-Theorist, it is entirely unclear what is meant by the phrase "timeless existence."

Well no, I'm just pointing to a possible example where our light speed traveler, would be in a real sense, timeless, even though time still existed for him. So in this model we have time existing side by side with the timeless, and it is not incoherent.

The traveler actually wouldn't be timeless, as that necessarily implies that the traveler is not instantiated at any point in time. Rather, the lightspeed traveler is instantiated in a single point in time, but not in any others. This entity still exists as a function within the framework of spacetime. It is not removed from spacetime, as Classical Theology would generally purport for God.

[seer]

The idea of "timeless existence" seems incoherent regardless of one's preferred model for Time. Whether you're an A-Theorist or a B-Theorist, it is entirely unclear what is meant by the phrase "timeless existence."

Well here is a definition of timeless I think works: Seemingly unaffected by time; ageless American Heritage Dictionary. I don't see why that would be an incoherent attribute of God, especially in the B-Theory of time - well what little I know of the theory.

The traveler actually wouldn't be timeless, as that necessarily implies that the traveler is not instantiated at any point in time. Rather, the lightspeed traveler is instantiated in a single point in time, but not in any others. This entity still exists as a function within the framework of spacetime. It is not removed from spacetime, as Classical Theology would generally purport for God.

Well by my above definition our traveler would be timeless while he is traveling. And yes, we are speaking of spacetime, but I think the point is that it is not incoherent on its face to have time existing side by side with the timeless.

[Adrift]

Perhaps you can school me. A lot of this stuff is over my head. Wouldn't it all depend on what theory of time one held? I mean would it be incoherent in the B-theory of time.

Yes, for philosophers who philosophize about these sorts of things, it would depend on what theory of time one held. Here's Craig's response to BP's concerns about the concept of a timeless being:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/divin...and-personhood

Oh, by the way, Craig is an A-theorist.