• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Time doesn't exist.

JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
moonbeam said:
I was thinking about what you said (typed)... the first thought was quite simple really it was just...... ( interesting ) ...... singular ....... kind of like one of those old steam locomotives chugging along... steam and fumes billowing... but as it went chugging on by (across my mind)... I perceived other carriages (thought)... which had been obscured by all that billowing steam... there was a whole line of them... each one dragging the next into view and so on... now my thought was no longer singular.... it was like....... ( that is very interesting indeed how intriguing ) ....... than I thought in retrospect (reflected)...... how multitudinous the thought that thought propagates....

It was then I noticed the time.... I had been mulling on that for ages and ages.... or so it seemed.

But the noise of the kettle whistling meant it had only been a few minutes.... anyways time for a cup of tea and biscuit.... and a little time to ponder on the perception of time... does time exist ontologically? or is it actually the perception of the person who does exist ontologically? - and if it is perception does that mean that time actually does exist?
Click to expand...

What part of "time does not exist outside of a thinking mind" do you not understand?

JudgeRightly said:
The difference is which happened first, second, third, ... nth, nth+1, nth +2, etc.



Correct. Frequency measures how many times something happens within a certain known period.



I never said it was.

A yardstick measures the distance between two points.

Time measures the distance between events.



Correct.



Because one happened before the other, and they did not happen simultaneously.

Let me put it this way: Outside of a thinking mind, there is no frequency, or duration, for its vibration. It's simply "vibrating." When a thinking mind encounters it, he can measure "how much does it vibrate (distance between one 'side' of the vibration and the other)" and "how fast (frequency) does it vibrate."

This might tie into this, but Bob Enyart, shortly before he passed away, had brought up the idea of the wave-particle duality actually being a wave-particle-word triality.

Worth a read, and might help you understand where I'm coming from.

Quantum Mechanics' Wave-Particle Duality is a Triality | KGOV.com

kgov.com kgov.com
Click to expand...

JudgeRightly said:
Measurement does not happen outside a thinking mind, Nikolai.

And the measurement of the distance between two events (time) is just an idea, a concept (which also cannot exist outside of an thinking mind), a convention of language (which, again, also cannot exist outside of a thinking mind).

In other words, the point you're trying to make is consistent with my position.
Click to expand...

Clete said:
Why do people who know they've been cornered feel like double speak is a way out? I will never understand just who it is they're trying to convince!

The concept is a reality because concepts exist in a mind but do numbers exist as something other than a concept?


In what way is it external to your thought? The apples are not aware of themselves or that there are other apples around. They are inanimate, unconscious objects. It is you who perceive that there are apples, this perception is connected to your senses but it not your senses. Your perception occurs IN YOUR MIND, as does your awareness of the fact that there are four of them.

And that's as close as you will ever come to connecting numbers to concrete reality. Color is something that does not exist in nature but is merely your brain's interpretation of a stimulus but in the case of color (i.e. seeing - as well as hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling) there is an actual physical thing that it is connected to. Light does exist, the pressure waves that your ears convert into sound do exist, the tiny particles of water that have even smaller particles of food dissolved in them that your nose converts into odors actually do exist. But there is nothing at all physical about numbers. Numbers can be assigned to objects but there isn't anything intrinsic about any object that presupposes numbers, never mind mathematics. Numbers and math exist as concepts and only as concepts.


It is indeed a real concept but it exists only as a concept with no concrete existence outside a thinking mind. The same is true of both time and distance (i.e. space).

Time is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.
Distance (Space) is likewise a convention of language used to communicate information related to the position of objects relative to other objects.

Neither exists in a material sense. They are concepts, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Clete said:
Events occur and objects exist but that isn't what time is nor does it require time for those things to happen, except in terms of the CONCEPT of time. Time is not what allows things to happen, existence is what allows things to happen but the duration and sequence of events and the location of the objects involved are all relative concepts. Meaning that there is no way to express the duration of an event except by referencing other events nor is there any way to express an object's location except in relation to other objects. If you don't believe me go ahead and try it. Relating one event or one object to another is something only a thinking mind can do.

So, yes, events would happen and things would change their location but if there were no one to witness it, no one to know that a sequence of events had occurred to how long it took to happen or where they happened at, then time would have no meaning. Time is a convention of language and this cannot exist in a mindless universe.

Your first sentence is correct, though! No humans required, God will do nicely.
Actually, come to think of it, God has been a human now for about 2000 years, soooo...
Click to expand...

Clete said:
Nonsense from the beginning to end. Science isn't beginning to say that time doesn't exist! The whole of modern cosmology is predicated on the idea that time does exist and that space and time are the same thing.


Yeah, the first half of my life was spent thinking about Einstein's theories. He DID NOT say that everything is energy. You sound like you've watched one too many episodes of Ancient Aliens.


Believe what you want, I suppose. Got anything to back up this belief of yours?


Which has nothing to do with the physical universe's CREATOR!


Time exists as an idea. It does not exist in the way that a rock exists or that you and I exist or that God exists. It's a concept, an abstraction. It exists in a thinking mind and nowhere else.
Click to expand...
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
moonbeam said:
I was thinking about what you said (typed)... the first thought was quite simple really it was just...... ( interesting ) ...... singular ....... kind of like one of those old steam locomotives chugging along... steam and fumes billowing... but as it went chugging on by (across my mind)... I perceived other carriages (thought)... which had been obscured by all that billowing steam... there was a whole line of them... each one dragging the next into view and so on... now my thought was no longer singular.... it was like....... ( that is very interesting indeed how intriguing ) ....... than I thought in retrospect (reflected)...... how multitudinous the thought that thought propagates....

It was then I noticed the time.... I had been mulling on that for ages and ages.... or so it seemed.

But the noise of the kettle whistling meant it had only been a few minutes.... anyways time for a cup of tea and biscuit.... and a little time to ponder on the perception of time... does time exist ontologically? or is it actually the perception of the person who does exist ontologically? - and if it is perception does that mean that time actually does exist?
Click to expand...
Very creative and clever post! I like it!

Time does exist just not ontologically (i.e. in same way that you or I or any other person or object exists). Time exists as a concept, as an abstraction. It's a convention of language used to communicate information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. It exists in the mind but only there.
 
Derf

Derf

Well-known member
moonbeam said:
Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind
Click to expand...
I don't have a usable model for a system without a thinking mind, but anywhere there's a thinking mind, time/sequence exists. That's because thoughts are sequential. They come into focus and go out of focus. Some are new. New thoughts mean they didn't exist and then they started to exist. That's sequence. That's 'before' and 'after'.

moonbeam said:
"In him we live, and move, and have our being;" - so time does exist for us ontologically.
Click to expand...
See @Clete's response. I think you're trying to change the subject.
 
moonbeam

moonbeam

Member
Banned
Clete said:
I think the term for this is...

non sequitur
Click to expand...
Ok lets break it down a little...

Firstly... the phrase "Time does not exist outside a thinking mind." - I'm reasonably comfortable with as it stands, and I want to utilize that phrase (logical construct) as somewhat of a template to overlay the scripture reference (Acts 17:28)... to overlay in the sense of imposing its logical constraints upon that particular scripture.

Having said that... naturally I (and I hope you) consider the logical propositions found in scripture as having the preeminent position (ascendency) as they are of Devine Inspiration... but that scriptural understanding does not preclude the examination of scripture by logical constructs (propositions) of our own devising as we seek to explore the full scope of scripture (via thought experiments).

So, I will copy below a post from a discussion I am having with Derf on another forum... with the intention of laying out my thought regards that particular scripture - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" (Acts 17;28 KJV) - and its relation to the issue of whether the concept of time (time) is an ontological feature of Creation (imbedded in Creation).


I will remind you that Paul was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) - hence we have that public discourse recorded in the scripture. I will also remind you that Paul was addressing an audience of pagan philosophers and academics who worshiped and revered and propagated the knowledge of false gods - false gods diametrically opposed to the true, living, God.

In the apostle's preamble he says - "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an alter with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Following that statement and after a few brief comments...

The Holy Spirit in Paul - inspired these words - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

That statement demands that we view Creation itself, as internal, to Him (the True Living God) - I believe that is an inescapable logical necessity.

My question is - Do you agree? or Do you disagree?

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon
moonbeam

moonbeam

Member
Banned
Derf said:
I don't have a usable model for a system without a thinking mind, but anywhere there's a thinking mind, time/sequence exists. That's because thoughts are sequential. They come into focus and go out of focus. Some are new. New thoughts mean they didn't exist and then they started to exist. That's sequence. That's 'before' and 'after'.
Click to expand...

We both agree that - The Father possesses a logical mind, and so a conceptual mind.
In fact, I would say God is the originator of any, and all, logical concepts (exhaustively)... both in the Creation, and His own person.

I am concerned that the concept of imposing (translating) your thought here - "New thoughts mean they didn't exist and then they started to exist." (which is the case in the creature, man and angelic) - upon the Mind of God, would demonstrates a change in knowledge, something akin to either an increase in known facts or concepts, and in a retrospective sense (reviewing those facts which are already known) a similitude of alteration from a previous state.

I believe that is in conflict with the incommunicable attribute of God, namely, His Immutability.

.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
moonbeam said:
I am concerned that the concept of imposing (translating) your thought here - "New thoughts mean they didn't exist and then they started to exist." (which is the case in the creature, man and angelic) - upon the Mind of God, would demonstrates a change in knowledge, something akin to either an increase in known facts or concepts, and in a retrospective sense (reviewing those facts which are already known) a similitude of alteration from a previous state.

I believe that is in conflict with the incommunicable attribute of God, namely, His Immutability.
Click to expand...

The doctrine of the immutability of God is not biblical, and can be safely discarded.

God is a living God.

He does not change in His goodness or righteous character. But He does change in other ways.

Immutability is a pagan concept that was introduced to Christianity by Augustine, who interpreted scripture in light of Plato, a pagan Greek philosopher.

"But... but... but!! Scripture records God as saying "I change not!!!"

What it says is that God is not going to break His promises:

“Behold, I send My messenger,And he will prepare the way before Me.And the Lord, whom you seek,Will suddenly come to His temple,Even the Messenger of the covenant,In whom you delight.Behold, He is coming,”Says the Lord of hosts. “But who can endure the day of His coming?And who can stand when He appears?For He is like a refiner’s fireAnd like launderers’ soap. He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver;He will purify the sons of Levi,And purge them as gold and silver,That they may offer to the LordAn offering in righteousness. “Then the offering of Judah and JerusalemWill be pleasant to the Lord,As in the days of old,As in former years. And I will come near you for judgment;I will be a swift witnessAgainst sorcerers,Against adulterers,Against perjurers,Against those who exploit wage earners and widows and orphans,And against those who turn away an alien—Because they do not fear Me,”Says the Lord of hosts. “For I am the Lord, I do not change;Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. Yet from the days of your fathersYou have gone away from My ordinancesAnd have not kept them.Return to Me, and I will return to you,”Says the Lord of hosts.“But you said,‘In what way shall we return?’
www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Malachi 3:1, Malachi 3:2, Malachi 3:3, Malachi 3:4, Malachi 3:5, Malachi 3:6, Malachi 3:7 - New King James Version

The Coming Messenger - “Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the Lord of hosts.
www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com

He's comparing Himself to His people, who had constantly abandoned Him, then returned, then abandoned Him again, and returned again

If God does not change at all in any way, then who became flesh in John 1? Who became the God of the world in Genesis 1? Was God always the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Did the Son always have the title "Son of Man"?

Is Christ STILL on the cross to this very day, and has He been for all eternity?

No. God is not immutable.

He can think a new thought, write a new song, and create a new butterfly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top