It certainly may. It, too, cannot be said to have happened an infinite number of times.

FJ

How much of a change does it take to qualify as a distinct event?

Any non-zero duration, I suppose.

FJ

Sorry... I think I answered a different question. If you are talking about deciding which sort of change to consider for the whole argument, then you can choose any non-zero duration. But, if you are talking about which sort of events can be linked together in the series, then they need to be of equal duration.

FJ

Specifying equal duration doesn't get you around a more generalized Zeno-esque objection.

I am not concerned about Zeno, because if the only argument against Bonaventure is that there is actually no change or motion in reality, then I am pretty happy with that, because I am pretty sure that is a pretty tough pill to swallow for even the hardest of atheists. And there are refutations of Zeno as well.

But, actually, I think it does avoid Zeno altogether for Zeno plays a trick by not comparing similar things at all. And he takes the advantaged position of measuring already accomplished changes, whereas change doesn't occur like that. It's a math trick, not an analysis of actual reality.

Taken in the proper direction, "Event A cannot happen over and over again until it has happened an infinite amount of times." That is one form of Kalam that I believe comes from the Jewish School. And that is the proper way to understand the problem.

FJ

I agree that there is change and motion in reality, and I think Zeno and his kin (actually it's Parmenides's fault) err in saying that there isn't.

There can be no zero.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

I know you do. But, that is all that Zeno's challenge accomplishes. It was designed to deny change or motion altogether. But, I really do think it is nothing more than accounting trick. Aristotle, I believe, was the one who objected mainly to the fact that it only dealt with change that already occurred and could not be applied prior to change. However, motion doesn't happen in halves, but only in wholes.

FJ

Well... I think we can conceive of zero duration event when talking about changes in state. I have a paper that is unfinished. When it changes to finished, then this seems to be to be an instantaneous change. Or, at least I wouldn't have an immediate objection to the claim that it was immediate. However, the "writing of the last word", being extended in time, even if by a nanosecond, is a non-zero event.

So, I guess if there ARE zero-duration events, then they are caused by non-zero duration events.

FJ

now we're getting somewhere.

So are there zero-duration events AND non-zero-duration events or just non-zero-duration events?

He can get rid of Zeno and related problems if he can establish that an infinite universe entails an infinite number of non-zero temporal events. I will not be convinced that Kalaam works even if he can do that, but he has to do at least that much for Kalaam to work at all.

I disagree. Zero duration = zero event, as zero = zero. Also, unfinished and finished are accidents. The event is putting the last letter/mark/symbol on the paper, which is an event with >0 duration.

Youse guys are confusing accidents and imaginary states with real events.

The question is not whether we can conceive an infinity. The question is whether an infinity can actually exist in material stuff.

(Father, please don't ask me to define "stuff". Thanks.)

What are the alternatives? A universe that has matter and no time? A universe that has time and no matter? A universe with neither? I am not sure how you can construct a physical universe without there always being events/change. If you COULD, I think it would prove too much for the atheist for you would STILL need a transcendent cause to start the change going... and even then, even if the prior state could be called "eternal" because of the lack of change, the current one that came from that eternal state is certainly no longer eternal, but temporal.

So, I am not too sure how you could have an infinite universe that did not have an infinite number of non-zero temporal events. I am not sure that is something I would need to demonstrate for the character of a physical universe would include matter and time, and both of those entail events happening.

FJ

I think you need to be careful about being so dogmatic about words. The word "change" can mean many things. And I am not sure that merely claiming that finished and unfinished are accidental to the paper, and therefore not a real event, for so is cutting my hair, which is extended in time. And yet, since it is accidental to me, I suppose it's not an event? Of course it is.

I will admit, I am unsure whether a change in state, as I described, is merely semantic, is a species of change extended in time, or is an entirely different meaning of change. I don't know. But, I think it is a valid use of the word to say the paper changed from being unfinished to finished. And you need to grant that or else you will lose your opponent. Best to say that the sort of change you are considering are changes extended in time of equal duration, and you will grant that there are other ways to consider change.

Lastly, I am not sure I agree with you anyway. Accidental changes, as I pointed out, are still changes. But, let's take a change that is substantial. Let's take one that, while not useful for a debate with atheism since it assumes the existence of God, is useful because of the offense some of the possibilities will produce. The transformation of bread into the body and blood of Christ must be instantaneous. If it is extended in time, then that means there is a moment that there is Bread-Christ. And that just seems to be offensive. There has to be only an instant when the bread is no more and there is only Christ. I would say the same for human to corpse. Sperm and Egg to human. etc. I think the idea that this change is gradual (even if extended only a fraction of a second) would seem to imply strange things.

Now, again, I am not sure what sort of "change" this is when compared to changes extended in time. Certainly, as I said above, I do not believe you can have these sorts of changes unless they are caused by other events that ARE extended in time, but that doesn't change the fact that they do seem to be instantaneous events.

FJ

I wonder what pax means by "stuff."

Well I must say your point is well made and well taken. And "Bread-Christ" is not only offensive, it is Lutheran!

It seems to be the case, yes, that there are both. I KNOW through experience that there are non-zero-duration events. That one is obvious. And then I can reason that there are zero-duration events as well, but that these zero-duration events are caused by non-zero-duration events. In other words, I don't think the zero-duration events are exactly the same kind of "event" as the non-zero. They seem to be more of a metaphysical necessity because a thing cannot be two things at once. So, a change in substance (a human to a corpse, for instance) must be instantaneous because you can't have a being that is both. Or, at least it doesn't seem like you could. But, I admit that this is only my quick thought on the subject. But, of course, there has to be a whole series of non-zero changes for a human to be able to change to a corpse.

Hope that helps...

FJ

If there can be events of zero duration (i.e., instantaneous events like transsubstantiation), could we not then propose that God can make any event have zero duration if He wished?