This is a question for those of you who believe in an eternal God (He always existed and always will), and that at some point He created the universe.
Did time exist “before” the universe was created, i.e. did God already exist for an infinite amount of time before the creation? If so, was he conscious during that entire time? And if so, what was he conscious of? Is it possible to be conscious when nothing exist but oneself and nothingness?
And if the universe ever ceases to exist, does God continue to exist infinitely?
Or is God somehow “outside” of time, in a greater dimension, so the concept of time doesn’t apply to Him?
Interesting thread, let me make a couple of comments.
As time is a measure of change, the question you would have to answer is: “did God change before the creation of the Universe, and if so, whats your frame of reference?”.
Its perfectly possible that if there was a God who existed before the creation of the Universe, that he existed in a state of changelessness. If you are saying that this “God” is a unity, and there is nothing apart from him, then this would seem like the logical conclusion given that there would only be one frame of reference.
This is just a thinking exercise, right? Well then, I believe God always existed, but so did the universe. It wasn’t created either. Sometimes I consider the thought that he is the universe. Meh, too weird. God and the universe are timeless.
Time only exists when the point of reference is physical. Consciousness is a physical construct also. Consciousness is sequential and and reliant on time. I think the physical aspect of the universe came into being later. In other words, the universe changed. So, no God was not conscious in any way we can relate to. But neither was he unaware.
No. But if your definition of the universe is that it is all there is and ever was, you can’t separate them.
God is timeless. But if the universe didn’t exist, there would be “nothing”, which doesn’t seem like a possible concept. The universe whatever it’s makeup can’t cease to exist. It can’t increase or decrease. It can change.
I think I made a mistake in my previous post by implying that changelessness follows from a single frame of reference. In fact changlessness follows from an undisturbed unity which is what I was trying to get at.
However the first changes must have happened before the creation of the Universe if you accept that God would need to have some sort of idea about what he was going to do. Then you’ve got God and God’s ideas before the Universe was made. So time passed (however short the delay between thinking and doing) before God made the Universe.
That’s closest to my take on it. God’s time context is eternity. From His frame of reference, everything has not yet begun, is ongoing, and is finished — all at once.
One could similarly argue that time does not apply to the universe as a whole: Events exist in time in the same way points exist in space. Yesterday, next Saturday, and the timeless singularity (“Big Bang”) all exist at different “places”. There is no “now”.
Do you have a reason that you described time as such? Time isn’t a measure of change at all. Time is simply a component of the metric of spacetime which allows us to measure the “distance” bewteen two events (ds).
Time would exist even if nothing ever changed. As long as there were two different events, time exists.
The orthodox Christian view is that God is outside of time. This view goes back to the christological debates of the fourth century AD (at least). If Jesus was “begotten” by God, was there a time when Jesus was not? Some Christians held that the answer was “yes” - this was labeled the Arian heresy. The orthodox answer was that Jesus was begotten in a non-temporal manner, not created by God the way other beings were created.
I find this viewpoint startlingly modern. I mean, this was 1500 years before relativity!
JS Princeton - isn’t defining time as “a component of the metric of spacetime” somewhat circular?
In point of fact: no. It is a mathematical definition from a hierarchical structure. I can understand your semantical argument, but the fact remains that “time” is a concept embedded in spacetime which is a more general thing.
If you want to ask what the definition of spacetime is you’re going to enter a world of Principia. Perhaps that’s nice to do, but it really misses the point of why I was talking about time in the first place. The fact remains that a metric quantity isn’t a measure of change as much as it is simply a measure: a means to a description in much the same way a point or a line or a plane are means to a description of Euclidean geometry.
Spacetime, as a concept is immutable. You cannot change it. Time and space are simply separate from them. If you were traveling at the speed of light you would experience time and space in a far different way than you or I experience time and space. However no matter who you are you experience spacetime the same way.
As for a christological connection between concepts: it must be realized that “outside” of time has no meaning in the physical world. “Begotten” is a clever metaphysical device to be sure, but it necessitates that God is not physical. Ergo, if Jesus was a physical being than he probably wasn’t God unless you can posit some connection between the physical and the metaphysical (incarnation) that is necessarily both. Of course, such a process should, in principle, be observable. As of yet, science has not observed such a process that I know of.
That’s the biggest problem I have when we try to mix the physical and the metaphysical: you end up with a weird picture like the M C Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other. It’s a stalemate until you make a declaration of one having supremacy and then your castle-in-the-air falls down.
Simply not true because if nothing changed you would have no way of measuring time and therefore proving your hypothesis.
Also a slight nitpick, but isn’t it contradictory to say that the existence of change and “two different events” are mutually exclusive? My point being that “two different events” clearly require the existence of causality which is as close as you can get to a synonym for change.
Incorrect. In an empty universe (described in so-called “Milne” cosmology). Still has measurable spacetime that allows for two different events to be determined and measured. There is no “change” seen because there are no interactions. Still, spacetime expands on Minkowski trajectories just fine. Time is well-determined and measurable. This is not just theoretical nitpicking: it MUST be true if general relativity holds at large scales in our universe.
No, causality refers to the arrow of time. It does not worry about physical change which is basically dependent on micro-physical processes.
If you got rid of all forces, you would still have spacetime. You could even have matter and energy, technically, though the formulation would look rather silly. You would then end up with a universe that was completely homogeneous and isotropic in space and in time but still existed in space and in time.
Furthermore, you can place two different events inside or outside your future light cone and measure the metric displacement between the two of them. In fact, two events can easily be out of causal contact and still be measured with a time component, it’s only the ds^2 that is invariantly positive. While this measurement is called “space-like” when you are out of causal contact, it does not preclude the existence of two different events existing like this. They exist though they are not causally connected.
[QUOTE=augusta] "Of course, such a process should, in principle, be observable."
By observable do you mean that *man * ought to be able to witness such a thing?
[quote]
No. By observable I mean the scientific definition of observable. That is to say an observable process is a process that exists in the natural universe which has physical consequences for physical quantities in the natural universe.
You attempt refute my point by an appeal to authority (Milne) - i’m not aware that he postulated anything to do with an “empty universe”. Maybe you could explain exactly to what aspect of “Milne” cosmology you are referring?
Also by JS Princeton:
For an event to exist you need a cause (or are you talking about causeless events in an empty Universe?). When an event follows its cause we say that it has happened “after” its cause. Its very clear from this simple statement of fact that you can’t have causality without time.
Would it make as much sense to speak of space-time-causality as it would space-time?
It is not an appeal to authority. It is a straightforward definition.
Milne’s cosmology is clearly defined. There is zero contribution from the gravitational tensor in Einstein’s Equations. One way to interpret this is to have no gravity. Another way to interpret this is to have an empty universe.
What about an event requires a cause? Be explicit. I am saying there is nothing in the definition of an event that requires causes. Period.
Technically, when an event occurs in the future light cone of the cause we say that it happened afterward and that the events have the opportunity to be causally connected.
True. The converse, however, is not true.
One can speak of space-time causality. That is a very important part in certain gauge-invariant theories. This is, however, not the most fundamental definition available. Since time can be separated from causality, you cannot use causality to define time.