The closest thing an atheist can come to for understanding god

[lightgigantic]

Those aren't serious issues, they're simpleminded circularities of logic.

if you cannot indicate anything that exists outside of the framework of cause and effect, it's not clear how you have breezed over the topic

Time does not necessarily exist, for example, in light "traversing" a vacuum. You can assign an existence to it in that circumstance, in order to meet your definition of a "thing", but you don't have to. The light's measure of it is 0.

And there is no such thing as "inevitability' without time in the first place. Time is 'inevitable" the way hue is colored.

then it's not clear why you reference light "traversing" a vacuum as a phenomena that is beyond it

But again, the conception of God involved and the conception of time involved can be set beside each other, and the outside observer or historian can learn about the one from the other. That's a fair statement.

even a historian requires time to make their profession meaningful

 

[superluminal]

LG, when you measure time passing, what are you measuring?

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,

I would tend to agree and I have been struggling this week to further capture those elusive qualities. I’m sure I will continue to think on this.

in short, we can deal with issues of spatial dimensions - everything from stem cells to civil engineering has something to offer.
Time however remains uncontrollable since it dictates the fabric in which we exhibit control of other things.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, when you measure time passing, what are you measuring?

change

 

[superluminal]

change

Good. Now, does change have a force associated with it? A mass? A velocity? A frequency?

 

[lightgigantic]

Good. Now, does change have a force associated with it? A mass? A velocity? A frequency?

no
rather changes in mass, velocity, frequency, etc is what constitutes change

 

[superluminal]

So change itself is not a thing, right?

 

[lightgigantic]

So change itself is not a thing, right?

what do you mean "thing"?
For instance if one sees a baby and sees them 20 years later, it's not like nothing ("no thing") has happened.

I think there is more to the OP than many of the critics here give credit for.

Metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real.

 

[Frud11]

Time no more moves in a direction any more than “length” moves in a direction.

Sure, but it isn't easy to get the air back into the compressed cylinder after you've undone the valve, so what do you do to reverse the situation here, if time is something that doesn't move? Especially in a direction?

Time certainly has direction, for the simple reason it is direction. It doesn't "go" anywhere, it is go. We "see" time everywhere because it's the way we see. You can't "unsee" light that's caused neurons to fire in your nut, or what? The idea of CPT invariance is an idea, reality tells us Time goes forward, not backward, for anything.

 

[Cris]

lg,

in short, we can deal with issues of spatial dimensions - everything from stem cells to civil engineering has something to offer.
Time however remains uncontrollable since it dictates the fabric in which we exhibit control of other things.

Hmm, perhaps, but then the basic forces of electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity, are also basic elements of the universe we cannot change. It is true that we have begun to harness and use these forces, and as Einstein demonstrated time is not a constant indicating that perhaps it too can at some point be manipulated. For example, we cannot yet affect gravity and in many ways that has a degree of ellusiveness that we also experince with time. Note also that gravity and time have a very close relationship.

Just by reviewing these facts I feel that man is clearly just at the beginning of understanding.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Hmm, perhaps, but then the basic forces of electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravity, are also basic elements of the universe we cannot change. It is true that we have begun to harness and use these forces, and as Einstein demonstrated time is not a constant indicating that perhaps it too can at some point be manipulated. For example, we cannot yet affect gravity and in many ways that has a degree of ellusiveness that we also experince with time. Note also that gravity and time have a very close relationship.

Just by reviewing these facts I feel that man is clearly just at the beginning of understanding.

uncovering the mechanics of time would certainly make us "god-like" (for instance if time becomes no longer an issue for us, neither would gravity ... compared to say a theoretical solution to issues of gravity- issues of time would still exist) - whether that will be tenable in the future is a different topic .....

 

[Cris]

frud11,

Sure, but it isn't easy to get the air back into the compressed cylinder after you've undone the valve, so what do you do to reverse the situation here, if time is something that doesn't move? Especially in a direction?

The problem here is again the concept that time is something separate, when it isn’t. What you are describing isn’t time but change, or causes and effects. Not many such combinations are reversible, but that has nothing to do with time. Time is simply a label we give to a sequence of changes. The error is then the attempt to think of time as independent. In this case time has no direction but an effect is the result of a cause, and that process is continuous.

Time certainly has direction, for the simple reason it is direction.

A false concept, see above.

reality tells us Time goes forward, not backward, for anything.

There is only change, direction has no meaning in this context.

If I have a pipette I can suck up a liquid, squirt it out, and suck it up again. The sequence is repeatable and reversible, has time gone in reverse because I can reverse an action? Of course not.

 

[QuestionEverything]

The closest thing an atheist can come to understanding god is the Sun. Just ask my buddy George Carlin.

Oh what irony! If only he knew that's what all the mainstream religions worship anyway.

 

[superluminal]

Metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real.

What does that mean? It isn't helpful. Time, by any known means, is relative and has no existence as an entity unto itself.

 

[lightgigantic]

What does that mean? It isn't helpful.

If time (or "change" if you prefer) plays a part in the existence of all things physical, yet doesn't have a physical form, it is clearly metaphysical

Time, by any known means, is relative and has no existence as an entity unto itself.

moving on to the next part of the quote

Time is astronomically and mathematically calculated in relation to the speed, change and life of a particular object. Factually, however, time has nothing to do with the relativities of things; rather, everything is shaped and calculated in terms of the facility offered by time.

it's not that time (or change) is relative to other things - rather everything is relative to time

 

[iceaura]

it's not that time (or change) is relative to other things - rather everything is relative to time

Or vice versa, depending on the needs of the analysis. If I start with Laws of Form (G Spencer-Brown), time enters later and relative to the needs of the logic involved. Euclid's "Elements" seems to do without time at all.

Metaphysically, time is distinguished as absolute and real.

OK, but such metaphysics is dealing with an imaginary world. Physically real time is not physically absolute, for example.

I don't know why you insist on assigning the metaphysical properties of your 19th century conception of "time" a physical reality (or intellectual relevance to adults, actually, but that's your call). Your metaphysical "time" is clear, and it does appear to correspond in some ways to your metaphysical "God". Although somewhat mysterious in implication - why would anyone have more trouble understanding your God than your time ? - your point is made and taken.

 

[lightgigantic]

Or vice versa, depending on the needs of the analysis. If I start with Laws of Form (G Spencer-Brown), time enters later and relative to the needs of the logic involved. Euclid's "Elements" seems to do without time at all.

I can also indicate that 1+1=2 is a finding that doesn't need to touch on issues of time
indicating how I know that or exhibiting any practical application of this finding without time becomes more problematic however ....

OK, but such metaphysics is dealing with an imaginary world. Physically real time is not physically absolute, for example.

that's because it is relative to things that are not absolute

I don't know why you insist on assigning the metaphysical properties of your 19th century conception of "time" a physical reality (or intellectual relevance to adults, actually, but that's your call).

I indicated it was metaphysical
if you insist that only "physical" things can be worked with adequately, that is a shortcoming of the philosophy you choose to adopt as absolute

Your metaphysical "time" is clear, and it does appear to correspond in some ways to your metaphysical "God". Although somewhat mysterious in implication - why would anyone have more trouble understanding your God than your time ? - your point is made and taken.

in short - reagrdless of your postulating about the nature of time, you have appeared within it and face a similar demise from the same agency.

You may say that the nature of time does not pose a relevant problem to your science, but the voice that you are saying this with will eventually be silenced (and forgotten) by time.

Actually time draws the disciplines of all sciences, since solving the problems of time is essentially the practical application of all types of knowledge

 

[QuestionEverything]

I can also indicate that 1+1=2 is a finding that doesn't need to touch on issues of time
indicating how I know that or exhibiting any practical application of this finding without time becomes more problematic however ....

that's because it is relative to things that are not absolute

I indicated it was metaphysical
if you insist that only "physical" things can be worked with adequately, that is a shortcoming of the philosophy you choose to adopt as absolute


in short - reagrdless of your postulating about the nature of time, you have appeared within it and face a similar demise from the same agency.

You may say that the nature of time does not pose a relevant problem to your science, but the voice that you are saying this with will eventually be silenced (and forgotten) by time.

Actually time draws the disciplines of all sciences, since solving the problems of time is essentially the practical application of all types of knowledge

Actually if I were going to anthropomorphise "time" into a god it would be the god of death. But as one who would be unwilling to worship such a deity I would have to create another god that represented life. For that I would choose the Sun. That would of course make me henotheistic (one who believes in multiple gods but chooses to worship one). Judaism is a perfect example of this.

 

[iceaura]

I indicated it was metaphysical
if you insist that only "physical" things can be worked with adequately,

Just pointing out that the parallels between your "time" and your "god", although obvious here once explained, are particular to your metaphysics of time and your particular god. 19th century European, both of them.

Other conceptions of time, such as modern physics "time", are not that close to other conceptions of gods. The atheist needs to know which metaphysics of time and which god(s) are involved, before extracting meaning from comparison.

Just a small qualification of the thread title.

 

[Frud11]

It doesn't "go" anywhere, it is go.
We "see" time everywhere because it's the way we see. You can't "unsee" light that's caused neurons to fire in your nut, or what? The idea of CPT invariance is an idea, reality tells us Time goes forward; not backward, [not] for anything.

There is only change, direction has no meaning in this context.

If I have a pipette I can suck up a liquid, squirt it out, and suck it up again. The sequence is repeatable and reversible, has time gone in reverse because I can reverse an action? Of course not.

Quite. This is, again, because you see it do this. Reversible does not imply, in your context--at least I hope you aren't implying--an ability to undrop the drops of liquid that form, or the stream that comes out of this pipette...? You simply cannot unchaosify chaos, that's why it's meant to mean unpredictable. How would you go about undoing any friction, or shear?