|
|
|
||||||||
Thoughts of Others
Chuck
Back to home
First post:
How do you prove the future can be changed? It seems to me only the present is changeable. Your statement that the past cannot be changed seems to buttress my point = that which can be changed must exist in the present in order to be altered. Furthermore, it seems to me you have confused time and eternity. For time to be eternal it must travel in both direction, (the Merlin factor). There are those exponents of the expanding universe theory who have also said the universe is ever expanding and then collapsing into itself. But even this is not a reversal of direction. For what begins again (which we call universe) is altered by the actual changes made through the process of evolution. For something to be eternal it must be unalterable (without change) in its nature.
Next you seem to confuse time with chronological sequence. This is a common assumption. Again, for the future to be changed it must already exist. For it to exist it must be in time, otherwise it would be unalterable (contra your early presupposition), but how can the future be unalterable since according to your reasoning the future is the result of a continuous expansion of time.
You also propose that the "now" is infinitely small, yet to me it appears quite the opposite, since that which is open to change is only the present. I cannot except your analogy of time being a movie. Since a movie cannot experience an alteration from within itself. At best your movie analogy is only a footprint left by time. This fact (that a movie cannot experience any change from within itself) seems to propose (in my mind) that time is alterable from within the experience of the present (now what is the present tense of time?).
Well I must go for now, I'll visit your homesite later.
Your guest
John Dunn
You make a good point about not being able to change the future because it may not exist yet. As you mention "for the future to be changed it must already exist." I now wonder if the future does exist "right now". It seems the future must "exist", because a minute later from now, we will be a minute into the future. Maybe it does not exist though, because after a minute from "now", that time will be "now". This is an new interesting question to think about: "Does the future exist?" I think we can make choices that will make the future happen differently than it would if we did not make those choices. I think the future does exist because we can make a choice (example to begin raising your hand) that will take affect the future (in a fraction of a second, you would have begun raising your hand). Perhaps the future can be shaped, instead of "changed". If the future doesn't exist, it would seem make time travel impossible, since if we traveled into the past, then the future we came from would not have existed. We also could not travel into the future if it doesn't exist.
I disagree that for time to be eternal, it has to go in both directions. For example, if time were represented on a numberline, it could be represented from 0 to infinity. Time would then start at some point and go infinitely in the future. However, there should be such a thing as "an hour before time started", which would mean that time could not just begin at some point. If this is true, time must be represented from -infinity to infinity, which would mean that time must be eternal. Actually now I do agree that for time to be eternal, it has to be eternal in both directions. Thank you for pointing this out!
I still think that "now" is an infinitely small piece of time, the precise instant it currently is, but I have done a little more thought on it. "Now" seems to be the time in which everything currently exists. It seems that the past is the way thigs have existed, though the past may or may not currently exist. It seems the future is the way things will exist, and the future may or may not currently exist.
Our definitions of eternity seem to differ, and I should have defined my interpretation eternity in my paper. Thank you for pointing this out. My interpretations of something being eternal are:
1. That it has existed forever in the past, but possibly end at some point.
2. That something began at some point and will continue to exist in the future, never ending. (Our souls seem to be this way)
and
3. That something has existed forever and will continue to exist forever. (God is eternal in this way)
You made some wonderful, thought provoking points in your response. Do you mind if I post your message on my site?
Jonathan Copeland
Jonathan:
Thank-you for responding to my mail. First please forward your web page site since it seems I failed to save it before going off line. Secondly here is my amended address: http://hometown.aol.com/orthoxtianglnr/myhomepage/faith.html
Thirdly, you are welcome to post my former comments; it was only fodder from a meandering mind (thus maybe a little fishy; my wife suggested flaky).
You still seem to be confusing time with chronological sequence. This latter is how we mark or measure time; it is not time itself. Why do we mark time or sectionalize (the etymological root actually meant to cut up or dissect) our experience of life into experiences? According to the Concise English Dictionary time is observed change. We generally use time as a noun but its etymological roots have it as an adjective. Thus to say "I have no time to help you" is to mean I cannot change my "now" or give to you a piece of my time. Following this thought we see that a movie consists of many frozen cuts of time (thus a movie is ninety minutes of frozen time). A movie may appear to have life in itself, but this is an illusion. The film is only a record of the past, and cannot be changed unless it is altered from without itself (i.e., editing).
Can we then actually say we live in time? I think not, because the present is always open to change, indeed the reality is that the present is ever changing which is why we need the concept of time. Time is then an object of man's intellect Since we ourselves are subjective beings having life within ourselves and the free choice(s) of our wills (however weak from the influences of our environment both within and without) Also, what of the experience of "lost time." The simple experience of being absorbed into a story (whether the medium of transference be film, a book, a lecture and even cyberspace) causes us to lose or forget about time. Yet, ironically this experience comes when we are actually absorbed in someone else's time. The simple roller coaster ride (a timed experience) can evoke from within in us a time in which time seems to be transcended.
Can the future exist in time? Perhaps in a relativistically way since the end of a movie (a story) takes place in the future end of the time allotted for the story to be told. But this future results in the end of time. Now some have philosophized that eternity is only an endless succession of repetitious cycles, but this seems more like time not eternity, If eternity is only a chronological sequence to be repeated over and over we are truly miserable beings. But if eternity is an experience which enters into time and alters it (not once but eternally) then we have some light of hope that we are not the meandering fodder of fate. If this be so, then what effect does the eternal have on time? Is not time always open to change from outside itself? If this be true why then do so many find life after death improbable? For we death is only a way of marking our experience of time.
Only that which changeless within itself is capable of altering that which is unchangeable in itself.
John
Thoughts on Space, Time, and Eternity
... Something that you might like to think about is an idea of mine; that time, while it could certainly be seen as a creation of God, is basically the tool that people use to quantify space. And, if there were no death, we would have no real need for time. I believe, in part, that that's one reason there's no mention of the ages of Adam and Eve when they were created in the Bible as well as no mention of how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they actually committed the original sin. Because, until the original sin, there was no need to pay "the wages of sin" which the Bible says is death which meant that there was no need to be concerned with time - they were originally created to live forever in eternity (which I believe is an absence of time). That's an idea that I've been working with for a couple of years now. Thanks again for sharing your webpage with me and I'll be sure to visit it often. ...
Chuck
... I am wondering, what would it be like in an absence of time? That is an intriguing thought. It seems if there wasn't time, the universe would be "frozen" and there would be no motion. My current concept of eternity is that time has gone on, and will continue on forever. I think if something is eternal, it has existed forever (no beginning), or will continue to exist forever (no end) or both. I found your thoughts intriguing and am interested in hearing more about your thoughts on eternity.
It is also interesting to note that Adam and Eve could have lived a very long time as you mention. That may be a key part in "bridging the gap" between Biblical accounts and evolution. I have seen almost absolute evidence that evolution is correct, but I have also seen almost absolute evidence that the Bible is correct, however they seem to conflict. I think they do not indeed conflict, though. I think the days of creation mentioned in the Bible may actually be great periods in the creation of the universe, or perhaps days in Heaven. There is at least one Biblical reference that seems to support or even describe the big bang. I think it says somewhere in the Bible that God threw out the stars, as would occur as a result of the Big Bang, and the galaxies do indeed continue to expand. There is also something about the recreation of the earth in the future, mentioning something about the elements melting with fervent heat, and the heavens folding up (sounds like a description of the theoretical big crunch). I assume we will be in Heaven when this happens. Anyway, do you mind if I post your thoughts on my site?
Jonathan
Sure you can put my thoughts on your website - for whatever they may be worth :)
The absence of time is an interesting thought. I would think that one of the larger questions in the issue of absence of time is to ask whether it's space that defines time, time that defines space, or a combination of the two. I currently believe that it's a combination of the two. For example, instead of just accepting the fact that there is no beginning or end to it we want to quantify space defining it in miles, light years, etc. We'll talk about how much we've accomplished - or how little - in a given period of time. And, to make sure we can "fit it all into our understanding", we'll use a description like "infinity" to define the space we can't measure. I believe that God is more than comfortable with no definitions of space in inches, feet, light years or whatever. That's not to say that God isn't completely uninterested in time. In Genesis 1:14 it says that God gave the day and night, "to mark seasons, days and years." But, that was completely for our benefit - not His. Probably, most Christians understand the concept of time in eternity using Biblical passages like Psalm 90:4 that says "For a thousand years in your (God's) sight are like a day that has just gone by." In light of that passage, it's interesting to me that you shared in your thoughts that if there were no time, the universe would be without motion. Think of it this way; if there were no restrictions (primarily in the form of death as I mentioned in my last letter) what difference would time make? I believe that all of the pressure we have in this world comes from the understanding that "our time is limited". On earth we "start the clock" with conception and end it with death. In eternity we'll literally have nothing to measure in the area of time. And, in the sense that we'll never grow old or die, it would be as if the universe were frozen for all time in one spot never moving on to that next "frame in the movie" (using your analogy) making every moment past, present, and future forever. Cool stuff, huh? Let me know what you think. I'll talk to you later.
Chuck
Dear Pastor Chuck:
Those were some interesting thoughts, especially about eternity always being past, present, and future forever. It sounds like this would mean that every moment would be the same, but that we might somehow be able to visit different times and places, just as we are currently able to visit different places. That would truly be interesting to be able to go anywhere and any time. If this is how it would work, one thing I would like to do is to see different periods of Earth's creation at will. I think measurements of space and time would be necessary still in this form of eternity and in the universe as we currently experience. In the current universe, events happen at specific times, and there is a definite time distance between events. For example, the time between when Bush became president and the time Clinton became president was about 4 years. If "now" is considered as an event, each thing in history happened a certain number of years ago. To visit a certain event if we can go to any time (in eternity), we would have to somehow know when an event happened to view it. It seems the same holds true with space. For example, the distance between the bottom of my computer to the top of my computer is probably about 2 feet. The distance between me and California is probably about 3000 miles (a distance which would have to be traveled though if I wanted to go to California). If I traveled X miles toward California on the surface of the earth, where X is any number, I would most likely not end up in California. If I traveled 3 miles, I would probably still be in Virginia Beach. If I traveled 30000 miles, I would have circled the globe, and probably would not be in California. Therefore, it seems that measurements are probably relevant, even in eternity.
I think the universe is eternal, that time and space have existed forever, and will continue to exist forever (time extends for infinity in both directions). I think space also extends for infinity in every direction. Whether time depends on space, or space depends on time is an interesting question. It seems to me that they can exist independently. It seems that there could be no space forever (time would still exist), but this would probably be a strange universe with nothing in it. It seems that there can be space but no time as well, but I think there would be no motion in this universe, which would also be very strange. It seems that in the current universe, time and space go together. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I found them interesting and thought provoking. They helped me develop my thoughts further too.
Very Respectfully,
Jonathan Copeland
Hi Jonathan
Your thoughts in your last letter were very interesting to me. It's obvious that you've given the subject a great deal of thought. I'm glad that you shared them with me. They helped me work through some of my own thoughts. It will be really interesting to see what eternity is really going to be like. ...
Chuck
Back to home