What Time Dilation ACTUALLY Is In Relativity (Hint: It has nothing to do with time)

[Derf]

Thank you for conceding the point.

I guess I missed the concession. All timekeeping devices use energy in a precise fashion, though to different degrees. The used up energy must be renewed for the timepiece to do its job. The hourglass comparison is easier to see than the hyper-fine energy levels in an atomic clock, but it's the same concept, and they both involve "using up energy" (transitioning one form of energy into a less useful form), which is another way of saying entropy. You've already agreed to that point. But the atomic clocks help to understand that the entropy concept is the important one, because of the transition to the lower energy level from which the desired frequency of output signal is derived, and that it needs to be repeated, repeatedly.

 

[Clete]

I guess I missed the concession. All timekeeping devices use energy in a precise fashion, though to different degrees.

The point is that, whether that is true or not, it isn't relevant. Clocks are about comparing events. What sort of event it is makes no difference.

The used up energy must be renewed for the timepiece to do its job.

But that isn't the reason WHY it makes a good clock. Indeed, if it were possible to make perpetual motion machines, they would totally make the best clocks! If anything it is entropy that forces inaccuracies into clocks.

The hourglass comparison is easier to see than the hyper-fine energy levels in an atomic clock, but it's the same concept, and they both involve "using up energy" (transitioning one form of energy into a less useful form), which is another way of saying entropy.

I agree that is what entropy is but it's beside the point.

Every engine in every car you've ever driven is up to its neck in entropy. Is driving therefore a measure of entropy or isn't just a point of trivia about the way machines work?

In other words, the fact that clocks eventually run down is a statement about the nature of machines in general, not time or the way in which the events that the clock is ticking off are being used.

God Himself is not entropic, is He? Indeed, He is the ultimate source, the very fountainhead of all energy, He is the only "perpetual motion machine" (if you'll forgive demoting God with such terminology) and His actions are events that can be used as a sort of clock. We are in the era of God's first creation. It had a beginning and it will have an end (not because of entropy but because God will end it) and then the new era of God's second creation will begin and we'll be able to measure the duration of that second era in terms of however long the first will have lasted (not that anyone would necessarily want to do that).

You've already agreed to that point. But the atomic clocks help to understand that the entropy concept is the important one, because of the transition to the lower energy level from which the desired frequency of output signal is derived, and that it needs to be repeated, repeatedly.

No. It is not the fact that the event is entropic that matters. Any event will do, entropic or otherwise. Entropy is not a necessary condition for the concepts of time and/or clocks to be utilized.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't know. Maybe time doesn't matter in God's domain, though I think you've argued against such before. Most longer times in the bible are marked with a beginning point and a duration, like "in the twelfth year of the reign of King Joe...", or "from the time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah comes will be 70 weeks". (Neither of the above are direct quotes.) God does the same, it seems, but He uses our timekeeping devices, such as the sun, moon, and earth: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,...there was evening and morning, the nth day."

I'm not trying to disagree with you, but to think through what God thinks about time.

You seem to have lost the plot of the thread. Let's recap:

Time elapses even when there is no clock to measure it.

How do you know?

Because God crossed an eternity.

And God doesn't have a way to measure time?

Why does God need to measure time?

So He can know whether a day is like a thousand years and vice versa.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that the verse you are referring to is about God's patience and longsuffering, which is stated by the verses immediately following that one, why would would God need to know this?

I don't know. Maybe time doesn't matter in God's domain, though I think you've argued against such before. Most longer times in the bible are marked with a beginning point and a duration, like "in the twelfth year of the reign of King Joe...", or "from the time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah comes will be 70 weeks". (Neither of the above are direct quotes.) God does the same, it seems, but He uses our timekeeping devices, such as the sun, moon, and earth: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,...there was evening and morning, the nth day."

I'm not trying to disagree with you, but to think through what God thinks about time.

Again, time is not an ontological "thing." It doesn't exist outside of a thinking mind.

God existed prior to creation (necessity of time as a precondition to creation; iow time was not created).

God has always existed.

God had always existed prior to creation.

There were no clocks (a category of created objects) prior to creation.

God always existing means that time is "flowing," since God has a thinking mind.

God can have a new thought (because God is free).

God, at some point prior to creation, decided to create. Going from having never thought about creating, to thinking about creating. This is a sequence. Sequence implies time.

He didn't need a timekeeping device to go from the former to the latter.

Don't confuse/conflate clocks with time.

 

[Derf]

You seem to have lost the plot of the thread. Let's recap:

















Again, time is not an ontological "thing." It doesn't exist outside of a thinking mind.

God existed prior to creation (necessity of time as a precondition to creation; iow time was not created).

God has always existed.

God had always existed prior to creation.

There were no clocks (a category of created objects) prior to creation.

God always existing means that time is "flowing," since God has a thinking mind.

God can have a new thought (because God is free).

God, at some point prior to creation, decided to create. Going from having never thought about creating, to thinking about creating. This is a sequence. Sequence implies time.

He didn't need a timekeeping device to go from the former to the latter.

Don't confuse/conflate clocks with time.

Sequence actually implies/is a time-keeping device, or "clock". Clocks manufacture sequences of similar duration. They aren't time, but they are sequences, which is how you and @Right Divider are defining time.

Question:
Assuming it's possible for God to do nothing at any point in His existence prior to creation of the heavens and earth, would any "time" elapse?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sequence actually implies/is a time-keeping device, or "clock".

Not necessarily. A clock is something that measures consistent, recurring intervals.

Sequence does not necessitate consistent, recurring intervals.

Clocks manufacture sequences of similar duration. They aren't time, but they are sequences, which is how you and @Right Divider are defining time.

Question:
Assuming it's possible for God to do nothing at any point in His existence prior to creation of the heavens and earth, would any "time" elapse?

Yes.

 

[Clete]

Sequence actually implies/is a time-keeping device, or "clock". Clocks manufacture sequences of similar duration. They aren't time, but they are sequences, which is how you and @Right Divider are defining time.

Well, sort of but not quite. Time is not the sequence of events, per se. Time is an abstraction, Derf. It is a concept. The concept isn't defined by the events themselves but by a comparison of some event or set of events to other events.

When someone says, "In the year of our Lord, 2024, Clete drove his truck into a driveway gate.", they are saying something about two events and the duration between them. The events themselves aren't time, time is the idea, the act, of comparing the events to one another so as to communicate their sequence and duration relative to each other.

Question:
Assuming it's possible for God to do nothing at any point in His existence prior to creation of the heavens and earth, would any "time" elapse?

Because His having done nothing will have been an event. A rather boring event, but an event none the less. He will have been doing nothing for some duration, and indeed, God's existence itself would have endured - thus time.

 

[DFT_Dave]

God has a past, present, and future, he is not timeless
An active God experiences time; has a past, a present, and a future. The creation of the world is in God's past and the day of judgement is in his future. God is intrinsically free and time is freedom for God to do what he wants, when he wants, where he wants in the universe he has created. God can do more than one thing at a time but he does not do everything he is capable of doing all at once. God is not "pure actuality without potentiality--a timeless unmoved mover". He freely actualizes his own unlimited creative potential in an eternity of unlimited time and space. A timeless God cannot act in the world of time without contradiction to his nature. A timeless God does nothing or he must always be doing everything he can possibly do at the same never ending moment. Time is not something extrinsic to God, not outside of, or along side of God--not a thing in itself that controls or limits him.

See my new design of my website: https://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/

 

[Clete]

God has a past, present, and future, he is not timeless
An active God experiences time; has a past, a present, and a future. The creation of the world is in God's past and the day of judgement is in his future. God is intrinsically free and time is freedom for God to do what he wants, when he wants, where he wants in the universe he has created. God can do more than one thing at a time but he does not do everything he is capable of doing all at once. God is not "pure actuality without potentiality--a timeless unmoved mover". He freely actualizes his own unlimited creative potential in an eternity of unlimited time and space. A timeless God cannot act in the world of time without contradiction to his nature. A timeless God does nothing or he must always be doing everything he can possibly do at the same never ending moment. Time is not something extrinsic to God, not outside of, or along side of God--not a thing in itself that controls or limits him.

See my new design of my website: https://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/

I'd agree with that, especially with the inclusion of that last bit about time not being things in itself.

Both time and space are ideas, nothing more.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Both time and space are ideas, nothing more.

What do you mean? Do you mean there is no such thing as time or space?

Do we live in a world that is timeless and space-less?

 

[Right Divider]

What do you mean? Do you mean there is no such thing as time or space?

Do we live in a world that is timeless and space-less?

Really Dave?

He just told you what they are. Please read his post again.

 

[Derf]

I'd agree with that, especially with the inclusion of that last bit about time not being things in itself.

Both time and space are ideas, nothing more.

I'm having the same problem as @DFT_Dave, I think. Time is more than an idea, just as space is more than an idea. Both of these ideas are used to describe things that are also ideas, but have concreteness, such as progression. If I walk, I progress through space. As I live and get older, I progress through time. If I compare myself today with myself from 40 years ago, the differences I see in my location and age are not just ideas, I can assure you.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm having the same problem as @DFT_Dave, I think. Time is more than an idea, just as space is more than an idea. Both of these ideas are used to describe things that are also ideas, but have concreteness, such as progression.

I think that you have an incorrect definition of "concreteness".
A "progression" is basically a sequence. That does not make it "concrete" as in a physical thing.

If I walk, I progress through space.

Relative to what? Space is not defined as a physical thing.

As I live and get older, I progress through time.

Time is how we define sequences of events. That does NOT make it something "concrete", like physical things.

If I compare myself today with myself from 40 years ago, the differences I see in my location and age are not just ideas, I can assure you.

Your movements over time and though space are NOT time and space. Time and space are ideas about those things.

 

[Clete]

What do you mean? Do you mean there is no such thing as time or space?

Do we live in a world that is timeless and space-less?

YES!

How many times have I said this to you already?

Time has no ontological existence. It is not a thing or a place or a substance or any other sort of ontological stuff. IT IS AN ABSTRACTION!
Same goes for space!

Time is a convention of language used to convey information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.
Space is a convention of language used to convey information related to the location of objects relative to other objects.

If you combine the two concepts then you start talking about things like motion and speed and temperature, et al.

That's all time and space are. Ideas. They do not exist outside of a thinking mind.

 

[Clete]

I'm having the same problem as @DFT_Dave, I think. Time is more than an idea, just as space is more than an idea. Both of these ideas are used to describe things that are also ideas, but have concreteness, such as progression. If I walk, I progress through space. As I live and get older, I progress through time. If I compare myself today with myself from 40 years ago, the differences I see in my location and age are not just ideas, I can assure you.

The differences are real because they are events and events are real but time is not events. Time is the comparison of events with each other. Time is the act of observing that one event happened before, during or after another event. Likewise, space isn't objects, it is the relationship of those objects to each other. A part of a sphere is on the side closest to you, another part of the sphere is on the side furthest from you. That which separates the two parts, besides other parts of the sphere, is what we call space. But the space has no substance, no ontological existence of its own. Space is merely the concept we employ when we perform the act of making such observations.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Time is a convention of language used to convey information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.
Space is a convention of language used to convey information related to the location of objects relative to other objects.

Time is the duration and sequence of events relative to other events, this is how we define time.

Space is the location and distance between objects relative to other objects, this is how we define space.

Where in the world did you get the idea that time and space are merely "a convention of language used to convey information related to...". This phrase of yours is incoherent mumbo jumbo.

It looks like you don't believe that time and space are real.

Without time and space everything would happen at the same exact moment in the exact same place.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Time is the duration and sequence of events relative to other events, this is how we define time.

Space is the location and distance between objects relative to other objects, this is how we define space.

Where in the world did you get the idea that time and space are merely "a convention of language used to convey information related to...". This phrase of yours is incoherent mumbo jumbo.

It looks like you don't believe that time and space are real.

Without time and space everything would happen at the same exact moment in the exact same place.

You seem to be having a hard time understanding "Ontology." I recommend looking it up, at the very least.

Time is not an ontological thing. Same with space.

They do not exist outside of a thinking mind.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, and into the future. --Wiki

 

[Right Divider]

Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, and into the future. --Wiki

Nobody is disagreeing with that Dave.

That is the CONCEPT that we call TIME.

Time is NOT the events. Time is what we think about the events.

P.S. From the SAME Wiki page:

The concept of time can be complex.​

 

[Clete]

Time is the duration and sequence of events relative to other events, this is how we define time.

Duration and sequence are themselves ideas. That which is defined entirely by ideas cannot be anything other than an idea itself. All you've done is express the concept of time. That doesn't make it pop into existence in an ontological sense.

Space is the location and distance between objects relative to other objects, this is how we define space.

Location and distance are themselves ideas. That which is defined entirely by ideas cannot be anything other than an idea itself. All you've done is express the concept of space. That doesn't make it pop into existence in an ontological sense.

Where in the world did you get the idea that time and space are merely "a convention of language used to convey information related to...". This phrase of yours is incoherent mumbo jumbo.

It makes perfect sense and you know it.

Try as you might, you will fail to refute a syllable of that definition.

It looks like you don't believe that time and space are real.

They are ideas!

Love is an idea. Is love real?

Justice is an idea. Is justice real?

Just what exactly do you mean by "real"?

Without time and space everything would happen at the same exact moment in the exact same place.

Stolen concept fallacy.

There are no such concepts as "moment" or "place" outside the context of time. You use the concept within the context of the concepts non-existence and thus contradict yourself. Your objection is thereby self-defeating and invalid.

 

[DFT_Dave]

So, we agree as to what time is.

The concept of time can be complex.

What time is has been made complex because of relativity.

Absolute time is past, present, and future.

God existed before he created the world so the creation of the world was in God's future. Having created the world, the creation of the world is now in God's past. This is the bases for the open view.

Our universal clock, the way we measure the passage of time, was created by God as days.

Webster: concept as in idea: something imagined or pictured in the mind

Antonyms & Near Antonyms

• fact
• reality
• actuality

A mere concept, thought, and idea are things that are not fact, not real, or actualized, but thoughts can be about things that are facts and that are real.

There are no such concepts as "moment" or "place" outside the context of time. You use the concept within the context of the concepts non-existence and thus contradict yourself. Your objection is thereby self-defeating and invalid.

More confusing mumbo jumbo. I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here.

I may not always say what is correct, so I don't mind correction, but I always write with clarity.