Would you believe? Time doesn’t really exist?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 24, 2022

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Good news for those racing a deadline. This from mathematician and philosopher Sam Baron:

So we know we need a new physical theory to explain the universe, and that this theory might not feature time.
Suppose such a theory turns out to be correct. Would it follow that time does not exist?
It’s complicated, and it depends what we mean by exist.
Theories of physics don’t include any tables, chairs, or people, and yet we still accept that tables, chairs and people exist.
Why? Because we assume that such things exist at a higher level than the level described by physics.
We say that tables, for example, “emerge” from an underlying physics of particles whizzing around the universe.
But while we have a pretty good sense of how a table might be made out of fundamental particles, we have no idea how time might be “made out of” something more fundamental.
So unless we can come up with a good account of how time emerges, it is not clear we can simply assume time exists.
Time might not exist at any level.
Sam Baron, “Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers – but that’s okay” at The Conversation (April 14, 2022)

Most readers are likely way too young to remember Maxwell Smart and Would You Believe? But couldn’t resist so here anyway:

Comments

Thanks, SA, for 113. Your research is very interesting, and I agree with the conclusion that these things are metaphysical and cannot be determined one way or the other. I appreciate the conversation, and enjoyed working to articulate my thoughts.Viola Lee_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

VL, cosmological aging is a mark of rising entropy and onward helps support the observation that time is connected to such. Arrow of time and all of that. Also, as I just added, those who advocate a pre existing foam, set up conditions where entropy is relevant to the antecedent that is put up, pointing to a finite past or heat death would long since have been reached. KFkairosfocus_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

I know it was standard before the Big Bang, and I know there are some competing hypotheses now, but they don't have much of a following, I think. Anyway, I haven't been paying attention to the discussions here so I really don't need to know any more.Viola Lee_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee @112,
re 110: I don’t get the point. Does anyone doubt the universe is aging?
Yes. That was the standard scientific belief before the Big Bang theory and there are its advocates now. -QQuerius_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @111, Interesting reference. Thank you (even if off topic). I'm reminded of a quote often attributed to C.S. Lewis but came from author George MacDonald.
“You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”
While some people complain this is a gnostic idea, the apostle Paul compared his body to clothing--clothing that was nearly worn out. -QQuerius_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @110, I'm sure that you've also observed that there are some meaty responses here that present significant information of various types either for or against a position. Other posts are full of sound and fury but signify nothing. There is virtually nothing of substance in them but instead, they - Make bold assertions without a shred of support believing their opinions irrefutable. - Issue aggressive challenges or demands for evidence, but are themselves unwilling to lift a finger. - Attack the character, content, or references provided by someone else. Here's a slightly exaggerated example:
"That's absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard on this forum or any others for that matter. You take the cake! Did you even finish high school? Your tired old argument doesn't hold water and has been thoroughly refuted. And the paper you want us to read was written by a well-known quack from an obscure journal that no knowledgeable person in the field ever reads. You really need to take some classes in basic quantum mechanics/extremophile biology/atmospheric chemistry/existential logic. Can you come up with even ten papers written in mainstream journals that support this wacko's position? But then I've come to expect this sort of thing from people who quote the Bible."
So, there you have it. Perhaps this bit is suitable for cutting and pasting in an admittedly less-than-generous response where appropriate. Or it just might further encourage them. -QQuerius_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

WJM @111 Good article. He'll be dismissed because he's a philosopher and not a physicist, but the data remains for anyone who wants to look at it. One thing that does not get mentioned though that yes, "life after death" is validated in that way, but it's also talking about the existence of the human soul (or call it consciousness that can exist independent of the body). That has huge scientific implications.Silver Asiatic_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

VL
However, given that we have no evidence about what is outside our universe, I think such speculations are as logically valid as possibilities as other speculations that don’t admit of a reality co-eternal with God.
I think you've done a very good job in laying out the issue and giving your defense. It caused me to do some research and consult experts in my own philosophical tradition (Thomistic realism) because my answers to you didn't seem to be strong enough ... and I discovered that St. Thomas argued that there is no way to give a conclusive philosophical argument either way - whether eternally existing creation of a creation in a discrete act (moment of creation). He takes the "creation of time" as a moment, but only as a doctrine revealed (in Scriptures, etc) and not as something that can be defended metaphysically. So, he actually gives arguments from Aristotle (who believed in a co-eternal created reality, as you present) which are pretty strong as I see it, and then the attempted refutations. But in the end, there's no way to determine it - as you have said. But the arguments against include: 1. To say that something was created but also always existed is a paradox 2. A cause must always exist prior to the effect. If the created reality is the effect, then the cause must exist prior to it so it cannot be eternal. 3. Any contingent created thing has a mixture of potential and actual. But it is not possible to have "potential existing eternally" since if the potential never becomes actual over an infinity of existence, then it can't be potential 4. There is a relationship between a created thing and its creator and that relationship has to have a beginning, in order for the thing to be considered "created by". 5. Quantum foam has certain potentials that would be affected by an eternal existence - mainly, if it was possible not to exist, then it would not exist (although God could preserve it in existence). 6. For something to exist necessarily, it would have to be necessary for God to will that it exists - but there cannot be anything that it would be necessary for God to create, everything is created only for the reason of God's goodness and the sake of creation, but not because it was necessary. So, whatever created eternal thing existed would exist just because of what it is and not because it was necessary - and what it is could not be explained. 7. From the above any created reality has some features which are arbitrary, not necessarily so. So, there would some qualities to quantum foam and not others. But these would not be explained except that it was God's will that those characteristics existed and not others. But there would be no way to rationally access that - it would just be a brute fact that "God did it that way" and not something necessary logically or otherwise. 8. Finally, I think there's still a problem where quantum foam existing eternally has to coalesce at "some moment" on an eternal timeline and would be a paradox. All of those arguments given ... as above, it is also reasonable to say that "anything created in a timeless, fully-actual reality (as in God's presence)" would be timeless also and therefore eternal. So, there's no real solution here - only a defense for one side or the other.. So, in my metaphysics that would be unsolvable by philosophy. Through faith (and not philosophical debate) I believe that time and created-reality was created in an "act" so some kind of "moment" but there's no way to prove that fully, but only give some logical support for it.Silver Asiatic_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

re 110: I don't get the point. Does anyone doubt the universe is aging?Viola Lee_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Off-topic, but an interesting article appearing in Psychology Today: "Does An Afterlife Obviously Exist?" https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-existWilliam J Murray_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Q, observe the silence in reply to my posting astronomical evidence and summaries: https://uncommondescent.com/physics/globular-cluster-m55-as-illustrating-apparent-aging-of-our-galaxy-cosmos/ As for Doppler red shifts, a key point is absorption lines characteristic of particular elements as was first studied by Fraunhoffer. These are present in stellar spectra, and are often displaced red-ward relative to where they are observed here on earth. Sometimes, blue-ward. Such reflects a well known phenomenon, Doppler shift, familiar with sound but also present with light due to velocity of approach or recession. Further, once we go to the use of distance metrics, there is a pattern, the Hubble red shift which led to recognition of cosmological expansion, expansion of space itself. Thus the pattern summarised by NASA. KFkairosfocus_{May 3, 2022
May
05
May
3
03
2022
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @102, It would be interesting and instructive to see whether JHolo answers the questions posed to him @95 or evades them. -QQuerius_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

Thanks, SA. I appreciate that the "continuous creation" idea makes some sense to you, and I also understand, I think, the concern that a "created reality, existing eternally, would have to show the effects of an eternal existence within itself somehow." Let me recall the context about reality that we started with. Our universe exists, and it has a life span, so to speak, with entropy bringing it to a dead, cold end sometime. The supposition here is that some reality exists “outside” our universe from which our universe arose. A “quasi-physical quantum foam” has been suggested as that source, but the question remains (unanswerable) as to whether universes arise spontaneously and probabilistically as virtual particles do in our universe, or in some manner. However such quantum events could be exactly the place where God influences physical reality by choosing events which would look, if we could observe them, as probabilistic. Also it could be that the quantum foam, as the background reality of God’s constant creation, is not susceptible to entropy gain, and only universes like ours which arise from the foam become instantiated in amore physical sense, subject to entropy gain. All of this is both extreme speculation about both God and reality beyond our universe. However, given that we have no evidence about what is outside our universe, I think such speculations are as logically valid as possibilities as other speculations that don’t admit of a reality co-eternal with God.Viola Lee_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

VL
I see no reason why God choosing some of the time to create (i.e, with a decision-point) is more likely or more appropriate for God than choosing to create always.
That God could "create always" is understandable as you explain it. The "creation idea" would be in the "eternal now" anyway so all created time would be contained there in the present-tense of absolute being. All of that is reasonable and seems true. Perhaps in the same way Mozart created an entire symphony in his mind in a flash of an insight. Or Daniel Tammet The Boy with the Incredible Brain can visualize complex math calculations instantaneously and not through a sequential process. So, there wouldn't be any "moments" of creation in that sense, as you say. That seems right. My concern would be, however, in the "implementation" -- or in the effect on the created reality. Because a created reality, existing eternally, would have to show the effects of an eternal existence within itself somehow. With God, eternity does not create any change. God does not grow older or get worn out. He does not lose or gain energy or power that way. But an eternally created contingent thing would be "an eternity old" and would show some effects from that. Could it gain or lose various qualities? If so, then we have our problem with an infinite sequence (gaining infinitely or losing infinitely - or just changing somehow over an infinite time). So, the created reality would have to be preserved by God, somehow, in an unchanging status, where an eternal existence wouldn't have an effect. In Christian theology we wouldn't have a problem at all (in fact, it's a doctrine in the ancient creeds) with the concept of God acting eternally - as it is said, Jesus is "eternally begotten of the Father". So, the Father's action is not a moment in time, but it continues eternally. But Jesus does not show the effect of an eternal "age" the way a created thing would.Silver Asiatic_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

Oops. Last sentence should read " Both God and reality are eternal, but one in the completed sense and one only in the potential sense."Viola Lee_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

re 98: Thanks, WJM. I started these comments as "speculative theology", but I was stimulated by thinking about infinity, and the difference between actual completed infinities, such as the entire set of integers, and potential infinities that can be extended indefinitely. My mathematical vision is that God is like the completed infinity, apprehendable only a whole and not by an accumulation of parts, and reality is like a potential reality which, from the point of view of hypothetical contingent creatures, can only be apprehended as progressing and never ending. One way to say it, in theological terms, is that God can see all the numbers from the outside, so to speak–the whole set is visible simultaneously and completely– but in reality events and contingent creatures can only see the numbers from the inside, moving step-by-step towards infinity but never able to realize its completion. However, there is still a one-to-one correspondence between every number in God's completed set and every moment of reality. That is my picture of continual creation. Both God and reality are eternal, but one in the completed sense and only in the potential sense.Viola Lee_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

What does "eternal" mean absent the fabric of space-time? Relativity 101...ET_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

re 100, to SA The image I have, which I think we agree on, is that God is eternal and is simultaneously “now” at every moment of eternity If you think of a line extended infinitely in both directions, God’s presence is the entire completed infinity of the line. There are no scales or markings on the line because he is at every point at all times. There is no “flow”: he is the whole line all at once and always. So you write, “Yes, but a choice is a decision-point. There is an act of will – the creation act. This is the language of “a moment” rather than an eternally existing entity which is not God.” I don’t understand this. God wills to create reality at every “moment” of his entire existence. Every “moment” is an act of creation. Just as existence is an infinite set of simultaneous “nows”, he has an infinite set of creative acts in which he creates and sustains the contingent reality that is his creation. Then, when I wrote, “Reality is not a necessary thing, and it doesn’t have God-like powers. It is a contingent creation with God-given powers.”, you replied, “The God-like power it would have is to be “an uncaused reality” and would never have had a chance to “receive” the powers of being that it would have. ... But this has to emerge from the choice of God and to say that it just existed eternally is to remove the “decision point”. Every aspect of that co-eternal reality would be fixed forever, and therefore never be an option. This is what would be a “necessary being” – there never could be a time when that co-eternal being couldn’t exist.” I don’t see why you think that reality would be uncaused just because it was caused continuously and infinitely. Why does the presence of a decision-point make it caused in a way that continuous causation does not. As I said in another post, the fact that God chooses to create reality continuously and infinitely doesn’t make it necessary: it is an option (God can do whatever he wants to), but the possibility I am discussing is that it is his choice to create continuously. I see no reason why God choosing some of the time to create (i.e, with a decision-point) is more likely or more appropriate for God than choosing to create always. Also, I’ll note that being co-eternal (good term) is not the same as being co-equal. Reality is still contingent and limited by God’s decisions as to its attributes. It is not what it is by necessity, but rather is what it is because God chooses for it to be so. Being co-eternal does not change this relationship.Viola Lee_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

JH, sarcasm in attempted reply to physics, fails. Here, in particular, I am simply summarising what those who advocate a Q-foam that bubbles up cosmi such as ours as fluctuations, imply or state. Where, they are speaking of a foam of fields and virtual particles with extensions to phenomena such as the Casimir effect. Going further, populations of particles etc with energy distributions are subjects of probability, thus statistical thermodynamics. As that name indicates, probabilistic patterns attaching to clusters of microstates are a major matter, and in that light, entropy is an index of degradation of energy concentrations as states of affairs gravitate towards those of overwhelming statistical weight [and tend to "stick" there]. That is, the trend of time is thermodynamically connected and driven by probability distributions. KF PS, a classic, simple first example is an array of 1,000 paramagnetic domains in a weak B-field, with alignments with/opposite to the field. This is a physically plausible analogue of a tray of 1,000 coins and it is more or less where both L K Nash and Mandl [author of my first stat thermodynamics text, in the justly respected Manchester series] began. Let's go to coins with 50:50 odds of 1/0 or H/T and thus a classic binomial overall distribution. Agitate, there is a strong tendency to go to 500:500 +/- ~ 50, in no particular ordered pattern, precisely because that is where the overwhelming bulk of 1.07*10^301 possibilities is. BTW, this also models the config space for ASCII code text, including every string of 143 characters. But of course, 10^80 atoms acting as observers 10^14 times/s [a fast organic rxn rate] for trays of 1,000 coins, for 10^17 s since the singularity, would sample up to 10^111 possibilities, about 1 in 10^290 of the space. That is part of why we speak of deeply isolated islands of function and the blind search challenge. Intelligence routinely produces tweets of this length but blind monkeys at keyboards search predictably is futile. I trust enough is there to see what the second law is getting at, in part.kairosfocus_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

WJM
We are aspects of God, or Children of God, or “made in God’s image.”
But what you're talking about here is a "relationship" with God. So, that requires that we have an identity that we "own" in the sense that we can make decisions, and be "like God" in our life and actually participate in the relationship. We can speak of "oneness with God" but that's not a given. Instead, it's like a spousal relationship. Husband and wife have a "oneness" that they build over time. That's the beauty of it. If, instead, we were hard-coded to be co-identified with God we would not have a real identity and would not be able to be a true child or God. We'd just be an appendage - as good as that may be, we would not experience the result of our personal choices, to grow towards God (goodness) or choose a lesser path.Silver Asiatic_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

VL I only have a brief chance to reply today so I'll just look at your statement here:
As you say, God creates as he wills. If he wills to create reality co-existent with his eternal nature, that is a choice, not a necessity.
Yes, but a choice is a decision-point. There is an act of will - the creation act. This is the language of "a moment" rather than an eternally existing entity which is not God.
Reality is not a necessary thing, and it doesn’t have God-like powers. It is a contingent creation with God-given powers.
The God-like power it would have is to be "an uncaused reality" and would never have had a chance to "receive" the powers of being that it would have. Those powers would be limited to a contingent reality. It would have "this much" space, arrangement, order, function, purpose - and not more or less. But this has to emerge from the choice of God and to say that it just existed eternally is to remove the "decision point". Every aspect of that co-eternal reality would be fixed forever, and therefore never be an option. This is what would be a "necessary being" - there never could be a time when that co-eternal being couldn't exist.
He doesn’t create with anything that is other than himself.
Yes and no. He is the source of all created being, true. So, the phrase ex nihilo means "out of no other created thing". So yes, the source of all creation is God's fullness of being. But from that, we have an identity and self which is capable of growth (towards fulfillment in God) and we are aware of our contingency. So, we are dependent on God. We can certainly become God-like even from our limits and we are "within God" in the sense that all of our being comes from Him. But He has created us with an awareness that we are not co-equal with God and we couldn't identify ourselves as being all-powerful and eternal. We came into existence.Silver Asiatic_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

KF: JH, entropy is still king and it will have the identified effect of turning oscillation into ringing
Then you are smarter than every physicist to ever lived. Nobody knows the conditions and laws that existed at the very beginning of the Big Bang.JHolo_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

VL, It's been an absolute pleasure reading your explanation of God's "eternal now." I don't know of any other way to avoid the time paradoxes. This is why I have said that whatever "time" is, it can't be what we we normally think of it as being. You said:
He doesn’t create with anything that is other than himself.
Spot on. This is because there is nothing else to use to create, and no other place to "be creating" anything. "creatio ex nihilo" is as nonsensical a concept as the time paradoxes. Creation is something "always occurring" in the eternal now of God, within God, made entirely of God. We are God having internal experience of itself, that experience necessarily being a creative act in an eternal now. This perspective corresponds well not only to many spiritual and mystic perspectives, but also with the quantum physics research. We are aspects of God, or Children of God, or "made in God's image." IMO, we can't be anything other than the creator creating a perspective of self and other experiencing what seems like "time passing" as internal beings (self) in an external context (other,) even though all of that is actually internal, which is how we think of dreams. A mystical way of saying that is that we are the dreamer, dreaming.William J Murray_{May 2, 2022
May
05
May
2
02
2022
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

JH, entropy is still king and it will have the identified effect of turning oscillation into ringing. Further to which, the cosmos is such that we are flat or pretty nearly so and expansion is accelerating not slowing down, not readily compatible with slowing expansion precursory to contraction thence oscillation. Maybe I should note, as a comparison, Hoyle tried to renew steady state models in the 90's, it did not catch on. For that matter, there are numbers of physicists who try to pull a cosmos out of nothing, but in so doing do not really mean non-being. And so forth. KF PS: Wiki wriggles on the hook:
The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. Such problems arise from the observation that some of the initial conditions of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to very 'special' values, and that small deviations from these values would have extreme effects on the appearance of the universe at the current time. In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe. This value affects the curvature of space-time, with a very specific critical value being required for a flat universe. The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value. Since any departure of the total density from the critical value would increase rapidly over cosmic time,[1] the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one part in 1062 or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value. The problem was first mentioned by Robert Dicke in 1969.[2]:?62,??[3]:?61? The most commonly accepted solution among cosmologists is cosmic inflation, the idea that the universe went through a brief period of extremely rapid expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang; along with the monopole problem and the horizon problem, the flatness problem is one of the three primary motivations for inflationary theory.
kairosfocus_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Thanks for taking this seriously, SA. You write, “The problem with a co=eternal reality is that without a beginning, that which is co-eternal never was created. It would have to be seen as “eternally existing” and therefore it never received the powers, properties and features that it possesses. It has to derive those from God who “gives” them to created reality.” No, it can be that reality is/has been/will be (it’s hard to use the right tense in reference to an eternal now) constantly created, at every now, and receives its “powers, properties and features” at every moment of creation. You ask, “Could God give them eternally in a “present now” of a creation act?” Yes. Why not? In fact, it’s strikes me as odd to consider the alternative: that there are some “nows” in God’s eternity that he is not creating, and then some that he is. Of course, he could do that (he can do whatever he want, so to speak, and it is not for us to question his motivations), but it is certainly as likely that he has continuously created throughout his eternal existence as it is that he has a vast (infinite) subset of nows in which we has not created. I don’t mean to be flippant, but what is doing then? Existing transcendently without there being any created reality? You write, “But for a created-reality, there has to be a cause of the creation.” Yes, God is the cause. That is not the question. The question is when? The position I am advancing is that God causes reality co-existent with his eternal being. You write, “God cannot be determined, or forced or driven by any external thing to create reality. So, God created freely by His will. If, however, created reality was co-eternal, it would have a necessary existence. It would always exist as long as God existed. So, we wouldn’t have an act of God’s will, but we’d have a being with God-like powers existing eternally, and therefore a necessary being.” No that doesn’t follow, I don’t think. As you say, God creates as he wills. If he wills to create reality co-existent with his eternal nature, that is a choice, not a necessity. Reality is not a necessary thing, and it doesn’t have God-like powers. It is a contingent creation with God-given powers. So I don’t think your argument in the paragraph above is valid. You write, “This does not solve the problem of how can there be a “point” where God acts while there is also no succession of time. But if, for example, the universe was created by the power of God, then there was a state when only God existed, and then a state where God’s creation existed. That’s how we can say that the universe had a beginning, even though if the prior state of the universe had no time, there couldn’t be a “creation point of time”.” [Let me clear that I, and I hope you, are not just talking about our universe. We are talking about all of whatever reality exists of which our universe is just a part. The speculation being offered is that one possibility is that some “quasi-physical quantum foam” (KF’s term) exist out of which any number, possible an infinite number, of universes like ours have arisen] This is the paradox: God exists in a timeless world with no “points of time” but we experience moments of time because we live in his created world where there are successions of events. However, continuous creation solves the paradox because all moments (all of God’s nows) are moments of creation. You write, “A thing that does not have a beginning does not have a origin and as such, has no cause for its existence. If it is eternal, then it is self-existing and therefore a necessary being. So God would not make an act of will for the creation of something, but rather, the thing would always exist. It would be unexplained and co-existent forever with God. But that would indicate some kind of dependency of God on the co-eternal thing. Where would that thing get its existence, powers, limitations, characteristics from? Would those be fixed forever in eternity somehow?” I think this is a repeat of the point covered in the paragraph above that starts “God cannot be determined. You write, Perhaps we could say “since God acts in the eternal present-now, then all His acts occur simultaneously”.” Exactly. That is what I mean by God creating at every one of his nows. He has created all that is, and was, and will be, no matter which point (from our experience) you choose to be the now that is. Therefore there need not be a now of God’s existence that doesn’t have an act of creation, and therefore created reality is co-existent with with God’s eternal nature: the difference being that God doesn’t experience a flow of time because he is at every “now” simultaneously, but the events in his created reality do experience a flow of time: that is one of the created qualities that he has imbued reality with. And last, you write, “Yes, I agree that we cannot speak about “moments” in a succession but also speaking about a simultaneous ever-present-tense creation of, for example, the universe – doesn’t align with what we would see as an act of creation “from nothing” (from God’s being alone with no prior material existing).” I don’t understand this. God can create: he is an omnipotent creator. He doesn’t create with anything that is other than himself. I don’t understand what is not aligning here.Viola Lee_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

JHolo, Do you believe in the red shift? Do you believe in the second law of thermodynamics? Do you believe that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, constant, or slowing? -QQuerius_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

VL
Why does there have to be a “point of creation”? If God creates in the eternal “now” there is no “point” that would distinguish when we was not creating from when he was creating. Creation would be an omnipresent act, as eternal as God himself.
I see what you're saying and the problem comes with the question of causality. In your view here, we could have God "creating eternally" which would help us overcome the problem of "a point" of creation,, since God does not act within a time-line, so there could not be a before and after in the eternal now. However, the problem with a co=eternal reality is that without a beginning, that which is co-eternal never was created. It would have to be seen as "eternally existing" and therefore it never received the powers, properties and features that it possesses. It has to derive those from God who "gives" them to created reality. Could God give them eternally in a "present now" of a creation act? In Christian theology we say that about the relationship of Father and Son in the Trinity, for example that Jesus is "eternally begotten". But Jesus is not a created being, but mysteriously "one with the Father" (this is not the place for a discussion on the Trinity, but just used as an example of a "co-eternal" relationship). But for a created-reality, there has to be a cause of the creation. God cannot be determined, or forced or driven by any external thing to create reality. So, God created freely by His will. If, however, created reality was co-eternal, it would have a necessary existence. It would always exist as long as God existed. So, we wouldn't have an act of God's will, but we'd have a being with God-like powers existing eternally, and therefore a necessary being. This does not solve the problem of how can there be a "point" where God acts while there is also no succession of time. But if, for example, the universe was created by the power of God, then there was a state when only God existed, and then a state where God's creation existed. That's how we can say that the universe had a beginning, even though if the prior state of the universe had no time, there couldn't be a "creation point of time".
And what is logically difficult about God’s created reality having co-existed with God for eternity? The phrase “a problem since its limits and reason for existence would be unexplained”
A thing that does not have a beginning does not have a origin and as such, has no cause for its existence. If it is eternal, then it is self-existing and therefore a necessary being. So God would not make an act of will for the creation of something, but rather, the thing would always exist. It would be unexplained and co-existent forever with God. But that would indicate some kind of dependency of God on the co-eternal thing. Where would that thing get its existence, powers, limitations, characteristics from? Would those be fixed forever in eternity somehow? Perhaps we could say "since God acts in the eternal present-now, then all His acts occur simultaneously". Yes, I agree that we cannot speak about "moments" in a succession but also speaking about a simultaneous ever-present-tense creation of, for example, the universe - doesn't align with what we would see as an act of creation "from nothing" (from God's being alone with no prior material existing).Silver Asiatic_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

OK, SA, I can accept the distinction: God is the ultimate reality, which is distinct from the reality he creates. Then you quote me as saying, "If an eternal God, in all his infinite “nows”, creates a reality that contains events that happen in sequence, then the conclusion would be that there are also an infinite number of events in reality." And you reply, "I’m not following you here. If God creates a reality, then that reality has a beginning – from the point of creation." Why does there have to be a "point of creation"? If God creates in the eternal "now" there is no "point" that would distinguish when we was not creating from when he was creating. Creation would be an omnipresent act, as eternal as God himself. You write, “It would not be infinite unless it co-existed with God for eternity. But having an eternal reality that co-exists with God is a problem since its limits and reason for existence would be unexplained.” And what is logically difficult about God’s created reality having co-existed with God for eternity? The phrase “a problem since its limits and reason for existence would be unexplained” doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think we have an explanation for why this eternal God creates a reality separate from him, but thinking of this has something he does at all moments, rather than has just some, doesn’t make t more inexplicable. Last, you write, “One might argue, “if God is eternal then God’s existence is therefore unexplained” but that’s not the case. I don’t know why one would argue that. In this discussion we are assuming an omnipresent, omniscient transcendent reality as God. Asking for an explanation about why God exists is not part of the discussion. The discussion is, to summarize, about the reality he has created, and whether it is possible (I say it is) that that creation has happened in every “now” available to God, and thus shares an infinite existence with God.Viola Lee_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Jerry, answering physics with sarcasm or the like is of limited utility. Empty vac isn't, thanks to Einstein energy-time uncertainty, supported by things like the Casimir effect. Pulling back, on cosmos scale we can see entropy laden effects as the "candle" burns down. Notice, the main sequence of stars is going away, heavy stars first and fastest. Locally, even clocks depend on entropy to work well. So, time is deeply entangled with thermodynamics issues. Including of course energy-time uncertainty, which affects how we understand the first law. As for contingent vs necessary being and time vs eternality, that comes from logic of being, another subject not readily, soundly addressed through loaded one liners. And, part of why this blog exists is to give some background for the willing. (Notice, too, today's OP on clusters and the HR diagram, the candle that is burning down.) KFkairosfocus_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

VL
I’m talking about the entirety of what reality encompasses. But generally I think God is thought of as being other than reality. He creates reality and may be immanent in reality, but his essence is transcendent and other than reality.
It's just question of terminology. "The entirety of what reality encompasses" is more than what has been created. It may be true that most people would consider God to be something other than reality, but I'm proposing that God is the ultimate reality - from which all 'created things' (or 'created reality') emerges. So, it's another way of saying that "reality" - is everything that is "real" - and therefore is "all being" or "all existence". Everything that exists, is what is real - thus, being or existence we could say is "reality". So, God can create a real world, and then be "in that world" as you say with immanent presence. Yes, but that world is not all of reality since God is the ultimate "real" being, from which all created things came. We say that because God is permanent being, self-existing. All other reality is dependent on a source. That is how we conclude that God is an actual infinite being since he cannot extract being (reality, existence, etc) from anything else.
If an eternal God, in all his infinite “nows”, creates a reality that contains events that happen in sequence, then the conclusion would be that there are also an infinite number of events in reality.
I'm not following you here. If God creates a reality, then that reality has a beginning - from the point of creation. It would not be infinite unless it co-existed with God for eternity. But having an eternal reality that co-exists with God is a problem since its limits and reason for existence would be unexplained. One might argue, "if God is eternal then God's existence is therefore unexplained" but that's not the case. The eternity of God is the singularity of perfect, independent being and is therefore infinite.Silver Asiatic_{May 1, 2022
May
05
May
1
01
2022
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply