I do not believe that whether some macroscopic real world quantity is measured or not effects its value in any way — Devans99

Before a quantity is measured, It does not have a well-defined value to be affected. That is why the measure number of length, for example, depends the relativistic frame of reference.

The measure of the object is intrinsic to the object and measurement just makes that known to an observer. — Devans99

This belief was falsified by 20th century physics.

But with past eternity and a counting, backwards travelling, time traveller, we have a measure of eternit — Devans99

But with past eternity and a counting, backwards travelling, time traveller, we have a measure of eternity - any number we can think of, the traveller must have counted it. — Devans99

At no determinant point is this true.

A particle moving along a real number line continuum must pass through every possible sub-division (sub-segment) of the line over time. — Devans99

Possible subdivisions are not actual subdivisions.

The act of movement - positional change from one moment to the next - creates the sub-divisions. — Devans99

I deny this claim.

I trust my senses and experience more than Hume on this point — Devans99

That is why God blessed us with a rational mind. One cannot argue from general truth to necessity without further justification.

Two events would not be able to share a cause and effect relationship if they are separated in time by less than Planck time? — Devans99

Accidental causal relationships are undefined in such cases because times less than the Planck time are undefined. If you can't measure the interval between events, space and time are ill-defined. Thhis is a major problem for a quantum theory of gravity.

This problem has no effect on essential causality because essential causality does not link separate events, but analyzes single acts.

Concurrent events cannot share a cause and effect relationship anyway. — Devans99

Really? So the builder building is not the cause of the house being built?

{God could not exist in time, but his presence seems necessary, so he must exist outside of time. — Devans99

If God does not exist throughout space-time, He cannot act in time, and all the proofs based on His action in nature are ill conceived. That does not mean that God is bound by or confined to space-time.

I would take issue with him on one point: he held seemingly contradictory views. On the one hand he argued against the existence of the Actually Infinite and on the other he argued for eternal time (which is a form of Actual Infinity). Aristotle’s arguments for Eternal/Infinite time: — Devans99

Actually, in relation to "the eternal", what Aristotle argued is that anything eternal must be actual. So the infinite is argued to be potential, and the eternal is argued to be actual. This produces a separation between "infinite", and "eternal", as categorically distinct, and lays the ground work for a conception of "eternal" which is other than infinite time. This is the sense of "eternal" which is more commonly expressed in metaphysics, meaning outside of time.

God cannot have a temporal start or end to his existence. He would just 'be' with no tense. God would be both finite and eternal - which is only possible outside of time. — Devans99

Right, this is that sense of "eternal", "outside of time".

Before a quantity is measured, It does not have a well-defined value to be affected. That is why the measure number of length, for example, depends the relativistic frame of reference. — Dfpolis

Relativistic length yes, proper length no. Two observers in the same reference frame as the object always get the same measurement results.

At no determinant point is this true. — Dfpolis

The past is finite. There are simply too many arguments in support of this to deny it (Big Bang Bang, entropy, equilibrium, the measure problem, non-existence of actual infinity, causal infinite regresses are impossible, matter needs a temporal start).

Aristotle did not know about the Big Bang. The heavens appeared fixed to him; part of the source of his confusion, he seems to have associated the unchanging with the infinite.

Possible subdivisions are not actual subdivisions. — Dfpolis

With continuous motion, they are all actual subdivisions.

Accidental causal relationships are undefined in such cases because times less than the Planck time are undefined. If you can't measure the interval between events, space and time are ill-defined. Thhis is a major problem for a quantum theory of gravity. — Dfpolis

I would have thought events would be simply concurrent if there is less than Planck time between them. So it would not effect the normal understanding of causality.

This problem has no effect on essential causality because essential causality does not link separate events, but analyzes single acts. — Dfpolis

I find Aristotle's terminology a little confusing. I am happier with cause always preceding event. I think what Aristotle calls an 'essential cause' is actually a non-temporal conditional and it has nothing to do with the modern view of causality.

Really? So the builder building is not the cause of the house being built? — Dfpolis

Building a house is a number of sub-events. For each sub-event, the cause always temporally precedes the effect.

If God does not exist throughout space-time, He cannot act in time, and all the proofs based on His action in nature are ill conceived. That does not mean that God is bound by or confined to space-time. — Dfpolis

God cannot exist throughout all spacetime; parts of spacetime are receding from each other at FTL speeds; that would mean God is causally disconnected from himself.

God created spacetime; he does not act in spacetime, all the proofs based on his action in nature are indeed ill conceived IMO.

Actually, in relation to "the eternal", what Aristotle argued is that anything eternal must be actual. So the infinite is argued to be potential, and the eternal is argued to be actual. This produces a separation between "infinite", and "eternal", as categorically distinct, and lays the ground work for a conception of "eternal" which is other than infinite time. This is the sense of "eternal" which is more commonly expressed in metaphysics, meaning outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree:

1. Eternal things must be actual
2. infinite things must be potential (not sure I agree with Aristotle here, but for the sake of argument...)
3. Without the concept of timelessness, eternal things must be infinite
4. So from 1, 2, 3, we have actual things must be potential - a contradiction
5. So 3 is wrong: eternal things are timeless and finite.

Relativistic length yes, proper length no. Two observers in the same reference frame as the object always get the same measurement results. — Devans99

How does that show the measure number to pre-exist the measurement operation? There is no way to prefer one frame of reference to another, and so no way to prefer one measure number to another. Each is the joint result of intrinsic properties and the details of the measurement operation -- as should be expected given the relational nature of measurement.

Measurements are means of relating the measurable to some standard. If either the means or the standard vary, so will the resulting number.

The past is finite. — Devans99

I agree that our universe is finitely old. That does not mean that given the data available to Aristotle, it was irrational to think otherwise. When Fr. Georges Lemaître first proposed his primordal atom (big bang) theory in 1927, it was opposed as "too biblical." Most scientists thought the universe had always been and many continured to believe in continuous creation as a counter to observations showing the universe was expanding.

With continuous motion, they are all actual subdivisions. — Devans99

There is no point in my arguing further on this. We must agree to disagree.

I would have thought events would be simply concurrent if there is less than Planck time between them. So it would not effect the normal understanding of causality. — Devans99

If you have distinct events, there is not concurrence between them. Being concurrent means there is only one event.

I find Aristotle's terminology a little confusing. I am happier with cause always preceding event. I think what Aristotle calls an 'essential cause' is actually a non-temporal conditional and it has nothing to do with the modern view of causality. — Devans99

In their ignorance, most modern philosopers do not realize that there are two kinds of efficient causes (accidental and essential). Aristotle and the Scholastics did. You may do as you choose.

Building a house is a number of sub-events. For each sub-event, the cause always temporally precedes the effect. — Devans99

Only if you choose to close your mind to essential causality. Sawing and being sawed are concurrent. Every doing is concurrent with someting being done.

God cannot exist throughout all spacetime; parts of spacetime are receding from each other at FTL speeds; that would mean God is causally disconnected from himself. — Devans99

God is not a physical being, and so not subject to the laws of physics. God is an intention being. Aristotle called Him "Self-thinking thought." As intentions are not measuable, they cannot be quantified and so are beyond the competance of mathmatical physics.

God created spacetime; he does not act in spacetime, all the proofs based on his action in nature are indeed ill conceived IMO. — Devans99

The space time manifold has no intrinsic necessity. If God did not act to maintain it in being, it would cease to be.

How does that show the measure number to pre-exist the measurement operation? — Dfpolis

I mean that the measure number does not preexists the measurement, the proper length quantity preexists the measurement.

The relativistic length is a function of the proper length and the relative movement of the observer. So for a given object, it is proportional to the relative movement of the observer. So for a given object, proper length is constant. Proper length is therefore an observer independent property of the object being measured and the object has this property (which I'd call a quantity) whether it is being measured or not.

I agree that our universe is finitely old. — Dfpolis

Aristotle had sufficient information in his possession to conclude time must be finite - metaphysical considerations are sufficient to realise this without recourse to modern science. It does seem however, despite the evidence of the BB, there is still a widespread believe in infinite past time, so it is probably quite harsh to be critical.

If you have distinct events, there is not concurrence between them. Being concurrent means there is only one event. — Dfpolis

If an observer measures less than Planck time between two events, I would have thought the events are concurrent from that observer's perspective?

In their ignorance, most modern philosopers do not realize that there are two kinds of efficient causes (accidental and essential). Aristotle and the Scholastics did. You may do as you choose. — Dfpolis

Thanks for highlighting the difference.

Only if you choose to close your mind to essential causality. Sawing and being sawed are concurrent. Every doing is concurrent with someting being done. — Dfpolis

A good example, but I feel it can still be argued that essential causality and accidental causality are synonymous at a lower level:

At any moment I could say the force being transmitted to the saw by the carpenter will become the force transmitted to the wood - it cannot be an instantaneous transmission of force. If then spacetime is taken to be discrete, I could regard the sawing as a series of minute pulses of force, each of which can be considered a separate cause, the effect of each being a separate minute abrasion to the wood.

God is not a physical being, and so not subject to the laws of physics. God is an intention being. Aristotle called Him "Self-thinking thought." As intentions are not measuable, they cannot be quantified and so are beyond the competance of mathmatical physics. — Dfpolis

This is a point I have never been sure of:

- The fact that God created spacetime suggests he is not of spacetime.
- If God is immanent and can interact with the world, that suggests a physical component that maybe bound by the laws of physics.
- How can a timeless God fit within spacetime? Surely this is like getting a pint in a half pint pot
- To evade the fallout from Big Bang, God may need to be non-material or extra-dimensional, but both concepts are hard to swallow from a materialist viewpoint.

The space time manifold has no intrinsic necessity. If God did not act to maintain it in being, it would cease to be. — Dfpolis

One view of God is more as a timeless astrophysicist: he computed the requirements for a life supporting universe, worked out the physics needed to achieve that, and created some sort of gravity bomb that resulted in the BB and spacetime. His involvement in the universe is over; maybe moved onto bigger and better things - his presence is not required to 'support' space time.

I feel the our best hope for extended longevity is closed timelike curves from GR. If the universe itself is on a CTC, we might all get to live forever. An astrophysicist might have built something like this into his universe.

I mean that the measure number does not preexists the measurement, the proper length quantity preexists the measurement. — Devans99

That is fine as long as we agree that it is not a actual number, only a measurable.

Aristotle had sufficient information in his possession to conclude time must be finite — Devans99

If by "time" you mean the age of the universe, Aquinas disagrees and I disagree. We must agree to disagree.

If an observer measures less than Planck time between two events, I would have thought the events are concurrent from that observer's perspective? — Devans99

Times less that about the Planck time might be unmeasurable, and thus undefined. Still, two events cannot be one event.

A good example, but I feel it can still be argued that essential causality and accidental causality are synonymous at a lower level: — Devans99

They are related, but not identical. Accidental causality is the time integral effect of the essential of the laws of nature. Thus, essential causality is primary, and accidental causality derivative.

- The fact that God created spacetime suggests he is not of spacetime. — Devans99

Yes.

- If God is immanent and can interact with the world, that suggests a physical component that maybe bound by the laws of physics. — Devans99

The laws of nature are essentially intentional, and are a primary means of God acting on the physical world. I have argued elsewhere that the continuing operation of the laws of nature is sufficient evidence for the existence of God as maintaining them in operation. So, God is the source of those laws.

- To evade the fallout from Big Bang, God may need to be non-material or extra-dimensional, but both concepts are hard to swallow from a materialist viewpoint. — Devans99

Which is yet another reason materialism is irrational. (The primary reason is that the a priori exclusion of what is logically possible is unscientific.)

His involvement in the universe is over; maybe moved onto bigger and better things - his presence is not required to 'support' space time. — Devans99

This view is unsound because only something intrinsically necessary can continue in being without the ongoing actualization of its potential by an agent already in act. Since the universe is continually changing, it is not necessary. Thus, its continued existence requires the ceaseless operation of God.