Login Register

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 8 of 8   [ 151 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:22 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 pm
Posts: 27829
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
That some events (such as substantial change) are instantaneous does not mean that all events are instantaneous.

True.

Has anyone pointed out that such "events" are atemporal, at least as not being themselves tied to time? The accidental changes leading to substantial change are motions and hence temporal. Likewise, the words of the priest involve motion. But substantial change (and, I suppose, the transubstantial change in the Eucharist) are not motions and hence not measure nor constitutive of time.

They are "perfect acts". Likewise, angels can do things, they might be called events, but it is not measure by time.


As I have read more of Spitzer, I have grown more and more to dislike him. His dissertation is full of false dichotomies. He is very tied in with Lonergan, and I suspect via that Kantianism.

pax is presenting some of the same dichotomy, and may I add begging the question. If you assume time is some existent thing, then you get into questions of there being separation of events, etc. But if it isn't existent in that way, if rather it exists as the measure of motion according to before and after, then time is not like an old film, it is continious. It is founded upon motion

Time is not made up of contiguous moments that need some separator (if time were composed that way, well we would have major problems). Rather, reality includes change, and changes that are motion make for time. The past does not exist, nor the future, but only the now and that has no "extension" It is "ever vanishing" Time is not some fabric of the universe presupposed by motion, time rather presupposes motion.

I see nothing in modern physics that goes against that account.

_________________
Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?.... Quid autem et a vobis ipsis non judicatis quod justum est?

My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:06 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 2:39 pm
Posts: 44130
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Malleus Haereticorum wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
That some events (such as substantial change) are instantaneous does not mean that all events are instantaneous.

True.

Has anyone pointed out that such "events" are atemporal, at least as not being themselves tied to time? The accidental changes leading to substantial change are motions and hence temporal. Likewise, the words of the priest involve motion. But substantial change (and, I suppose, the transubstantial change in the Eucharist) are not motions and hence not measure nor constitutive of time.

They are "perfect acts". Likewise, angels can do things, they might be called events, but it is not measure by time.


As I have read more of Spitzer, I have grown more and more to dislike him. His dissertation is full of false dichotomies. He is very tied in with Lonergan, and I suspect via that Kantianism.

pax is presenting some of the same dichotomy, and may I add begging the question. If you assume time is some existent thing, then you get into questions of there being separation of events, etc. But if it isn't existent in that way, if rather it exists as the measure of motion according to before and after, then time is not like an old film, it is continious. It is founded upon motion

Time is not made up of contiguous moments that need some separator (if time were composed that way, well we would have major problems). Rather, reality includes change, and changes that are motion make for time. The past does not exist, nor the future, but only the now and that has no "extension" It is "ever vanishing" Time is not some fabric of the universe presupposed by motion, time rather presupposes motion.

I see nothing in modern physics that goes against that account.


Then what is this space-time continuum that physicists generally refer to? It has always seemed to me that they were speaking of time as something with actual existence. Also, Father Spitzer made a point of defining time as "non-distensive", which I understood to mean "without extension". Help me out here. Explain why these concepts are wrong.

_________________
We are obliged to believe and confess with simplicity that outside the Church there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins. [Pope Boniface VIII]

Judas Iscariot is the patron saint of Social Justice. Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

A logistics problem should be handled with a logistical solution, not a liturgical one.


Holy Mary, Queen of the Martyrs, Pray for us.



Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:13 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 pm
Posts: 27829
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
pax, this gets back to the original argument, no? I said that the reification of time was not justified. It shows up like a 4th dimension in mathematical formulas, but that itself does not give support for reifying it.

Your argument in response was that history would be a contradiction. But that is why I have said it seems that your argument that history would be a contradiction is begging the question, since it assumes a reification.

Perhaps I have misunderstood or you misunderstood what point the other was making? I don't so much have a refutation in mind, but only the claim right now that such a move is not justified.


As a side note, I would with non-distensive would mean something that is not distended, or not susceptible to distention. I generally see that term in biology or medicine. Like a distended stomoch. That would make it sound like Spitzer is saying that time cannot be stretched, enlarged, bent.

_________________
Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?.... Quid autem et a vobis ipsis non judicatis quod justum est?

My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:16 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:55 am
Posts: 66352
Location: 1.56381501 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
It's also a shot in the direction of St. Augustine, who decided that time is a distension of the mind. (That's not dogmatic, of course, but one argues with St. Augustine with caution.)

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:32 pm 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 8:54 am
Posts: 36808
Location: Ad Mariam, America!
Religion: Roman Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
pax wrote:
Then what is this space-time continuum that physicists generally refer to?

A tool to make predictions about the natural universe.

_________________
"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King." (1 Peter 2:17)
Federation of North-American Explorers - North Star Group - How You Can Help

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 8:54 am
Posts: 36808
Location: Ad Mariam, America!
Religion: Roman Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
Malleus Haereticorum wrote:
mathematical formulae

FTFY

_________________
"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King." (1 Peter 2:17)
Federation of North-American Explorers - North Star Group - How You Can Help

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 1:33 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 2:39 pm
Posts: 44130
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
It's also a shot in the direction of St. Augustine, who decided that time is a distension of the mind. (That's not dogmatic, of course, but one argues with St. Augustine with caution.)



Augustine also says that time began with creation. He implies that time is something created. How does that square with his other description of time?

_________________
We are obliged to believe and confess with simplicity that outside the Church there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins. [Pope Boniface VIII]

Judas Iscariot is the patron saint of Social Justice. Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

A logistics problem should be handled with a logistical solution, not a liturgical one.


Holy Mary, Queen of the Martyrs, Pray for us.



Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 1:48 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:55 am
Posts: 66352
Location: 1.56381501 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
He says both things in the same book (what we'd call chapter) of the Confessions.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:40 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 pm
Posts: 27829
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
pax wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
It's also a shot in the direction of St. Augustine, who decided that time is a distension of the mind. (That's not dogmatic, of course, but one argues with St. Augustine with caution.)



Augustine also says that time began with creation. He implies that time is something created. How does that square with his other description of time?

That time is a distension of mind does not mean it has no fundation outside the mind. Kantianism would hold time is the inner form of our apprehension of things, and not founded on things external. But Aquinas, Aristotle, Augustine aren't saying that. They are, however, realizing that time as such involves a measure and there a mind. More fundamentally, all of them realize that the past doesn't exist nor the future, but only the now, but the now has no part, and yet time seems like some that is extended.

_________________
Ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur?.... Quid autem et a vobis ipsis non judicatis quod justum est?

My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 8:31 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 2:39 pm
Posts: 44130
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Malleus Haereticorum wrote:
pax wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
It's also a shot in the direction of St. Augustine, who decided that time is a distension of the mind. (That's not dogmatic, of course, but one argues with St. Augustine with caution.)



Augustine also says that time began with creation. He implies that time is something created. How does that square with his other description of time?

That time is a distension of mind does not mean it has no fundation outside the mind. Kantianism would hold time is the inner form of our apprehension of things, and not founded on things external. But Aquinas, Aristotle, Augustine aren't saying that. They are, however, realizing that time as such involves a measure and there a mind. More fundamentally, all of them realize that the past doesn't exist nor the future, but only the now, but the now has no part, and yet time seems like some that is extended.


Time had a definite beginning, and that before man was created. Also, we are fond of saying that all events, past present and future, do indeed exist before God in eternity. I am curious as to how we describe their existence if it is not material.

_________________
We are obliged to believe and confess with simplicity that outside the Church there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins. [Pope Boniface VIII]

Judas Iscariot is the patron saint of Social Justice. Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

A logistics problem should be handled with a logistical solution, not a liturgical one.


Holy Mary, Queen of the Martyrs, Pray for us.



Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Argument from Motion
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 8:56 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 10739
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
pax wrote:
Malleus Haereticorum wrote:
pax wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
It's also a shot in the direction of St. Augustine, who decided that time is a distension of the mind. (That's not dogmatic, of course, but one argues with St. Augustine with caution.)



Augustine also says that time began with creation. He implies that time is something created. How does that square with his other description of time?

That time is a distension of mind does not mean it has no fundation outside the mind. Kantianism would hold time is the inner form of our apprehension of things, and not founded on things external. But Aquinas, Aristotle, Augustine aren't saying that. They are, however, realizing that time as such involves a measure and there a mind. More fundamentally, all of them realize that the past doesn't exist nor the future, but only the now, but the now has no part, and yet time seems like some that is extended.


Time had a definite beginning, and that before man was created. Also, we are fond of saying that all events, past present and future, do indeed exist before God in eternity. I am curious as to how we describe their existence if it is not material.


I have also wondered this myself. This part of philosophy (and science) is beyond my concentration. I know I took courses that covered this sort of thing, but it was a passing thing rather than a focus. I know for a fact that I reject B-Theory. But, as I identify with A-Theory I still sort of find myself not being to completely identify with them either in some regard. One of those concerns is due to the eternal action of God upon all of time. I think this is a valid point to raise.

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 8 of 8   [ 151 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


Jump to: