Eise

Would you mind to read the thread from the point on where I chimed in? Otherwise I have to repeat everything. From a single muon itself you will never be able to conclude that time has passed. Only when compared to a standard-changer device. Just for the ease, say a muon has a halftime of 1 μs. I give a muon to you, and after 1ns it decays. Can you now tell that the muon must have lived already a while, because it decayed so fast? Say I repeat this a thousand times. I give you a muon and you measure the decay times. Do you think you can conclude that all my muons are 'older' because you find a shorter halftime? Sorry, but that is not what I meant. I don't think I am right because of the many reactions. I was saying that people seem to care, as elfmotat says, about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Read better, in context.

I don't think I missed it. I already said before that time in QM is as difficult to understand as is location. I also implied some postings before that taking a single radioactive nucleus is not a good device for e.g. confirming the twin paradox. You should take at least a huge amount of them. The change is in the number of muons, that decreases slower when flying close to the speed of light. More I have never said or implied. Maybe I was not so precise, but I thought that wasn't needed here. Maybe I am wrong?

So it seems that yo have an answer to the question: for you there is at least one angel is dancing on the pin of the head. I don't bother. But somebody asked and I gave my answer. And as you see this provoked some strong reactions. Isn't that funny? And just for the record: I do not belong to the 'new age' category of people who say that time is an illusion. Even if I would say something like that, but would immediately followup with "but change isn't", I would be spit out as a shallow materialist. (which I am not. I am a deep materialist... ) And, btw, there was some famous physicist, who sent the widow of his beloved friend Besso, as comfort, that time is an illusion. No, no, that is not fair. It should be about space then. Length can be easily defined by comparing it with standard lengths, as duration can be defined by comparing it with standard durations, like clocks.

Which is not the same as saying time doesn't exist if there is no change. But it is also not the same as saying time exists. Everytime you would like to prove that time exists you must refer to change. 'Time' is just a superfluous metaphysical category. Oh, come on Swansont, you can do better. I gave the example with the radioactive substance already. Halftime of the moving muons is longer. That means they change slower than the muons that are more or less stationary in my laboratory. And what is 'using time' else than comparing it to a 'standard-changer' (aka a clock). Everytime one makes the concept of time operational, you must refer to some other process. No idea. But how do you think you can answer the question without referring to something that changes?

Ten oz, you are mixing up the criteria. Criterion 1 is about how close to contemporary a testimony is, nothing more. Also, you are mixing up the time of the witnessing, and the writing down of it. If I now tell you that I saw the meteor of Neuschwanstein, then am I a contemporary witness or not, even that the event happened 12 years ago? So, here are the facts: This is the citation of Paul in Galatians 2: Paul refers to his conversion (3 years after). Cephas is the Aramaic name for Peter (the apostle). The experts agree that Galatians is one of the authentic sources (look it up in the link you provided). About the time frame: Ehrman, Did Jesus exist? Also, don't forget that Paul did not met just some bystanders that have seen Jesus preaching. He met one of the apostles and Jesus' brother. I did a service to you not to give 100% for this point. But it is true: it is not exactly contemporary, so not the full 100. Sorry, Robittybob1, you are a believer. Whatever argument I give, how good it is, you will still believe. The only real help I can offer to you is this: It is: one criterion more criteria

Right. It doesn't even say that time is. Time is just a useful abstraction for change. Compare this with e.g temperature: we can analyze temperature in terms of kinetic energy. But there is no independent way of observing time than observing change. No, because the systems are not identical anymore. Remember that that was the point where I started? With identical systems, that started with the same initial conditions. When after a while they did not develop the same, then they were not identical (lower ambient temperature) or I can conclude that both reactions did not start at the same time. Your clock will say yes... No! The muons decay, i.e. change, slower, that is what I observe. And so I say time has slowed down, but there is no time apart from the change. See my example of the decaying radium yesterday.

It's a criterion. As I said, give me the references to Jewish documents. I don't have any. There are nearly no references to Jesus in religious Jewish sources, except of course negative. No mentioning of an awakening from the dead. And you did not meet a person who raised people from the dead: you met somebody who said so. You have no absolute evidence of people that were really dead (4 days and rotting) and then got alive again. John 11:

Physics says nothing about it. Everytime when we do the experiments, we have to look at change, be it a clock or a twin that is much younger than his brother. You cannot say that 'Time in any inertial frame is the same at all points' without giving it an operational definition, with clocks and distances. In 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' Einstein is explicitly using clocks and rods. I think it was because he saw that the concepts of time and space taken on its own are empty, and you have to use operational definitions. Saying that time is slower in another inertial system is in fact saying that changes there are slower. You make the same mistake as StringJunky: time doesn't proceed. Changes proceed. So changes are occurring in the way that the laws of physics describe. Can you describe me how you can test that time exists without change? Is that idea testable?

There is no way of knowing that. 'Time occurring': don't you see the difficulty in this phrase? Something occurring means that something is changing. Is time occurring then? (Does time have speed? ) I already gave the example of the 'relativistic twin experiment'. How do I know that less time has passed for the traveling brother? Because there was less change. Is there a way to know that less time passed without noticing the amount of change? So is there a way to know if exists independent of change?

Seems you want it the hard way too... Suppose we have a closed system in which there is no change. Does time pass in the system? How can we know without entering the system, i.e. introducing time ourselves? And which was supposed to be a closed system? So if you say that time passes when there is no change, you say something that is impossible to know, as a matter of principle. Time does not exist independent of change. Just in the same way that space does not exist without lengths or distances. Both space and time are abstract principles without physical meaning. Distances and changes have physical meaning: they can be observed.

How would you know? Observing is already a process in itself, so this is an unanswerable question. Fact is that 'time' is always connected to change. So the step to state that time is change (or if you wish, an abstraction of change) seems quite logical. What can we say about something that only exists when we measure? That's too general. I don't know what is happening in Sidney right now, but of course there is a lot happening. But of something that is accessible only by something happening, as with time, I am inclined to say 'yes'. Time has no objectivity. Change has.

Yes, you are right. But given that QM not only brings difficulties in our understanding of the concept of time, it also brings difficulties in our understanding of the concept of locality, I will not dive too deep into this problem. Just this: you suggest that nothing has changed as long as the atom did not decay (if you suggest the opposite, then you are assuming the existence of hidden parameters). Now assume Physicist A produces artificial radioactive nuclei, say with a halftime of 1 hour. Say he produces 100 of them. After 1 hour he has 50 left. Now, (in nearly no time), he extracts the 50 left and gives them to Physicist B. Will, by measuring the decay of these 50 nuclei, B be able to determine that these nuclei already have been there for 1 hour? So, has time passed for these 50 nuclei? (Just compare with the question 'What way did the photon go in the double split experiment?'.) Or maybe stated another way: assume a portion of absolute stable nuclei. Can we tell how much time has passed for these nuclei? Now we have these two together: 1 gram of lead, 1 gram of the artificial nuclei. After 1 hour, I still have 1 gram of lead, but only 0.5 gram of the radioactive stuff. What is time now? Is it not just convention of us, to say that 1 hour has passed for the lead? If we do not observe change, or at least derive that change has happened (e.g. in geological layers), how can we know that time has passed? Let's do the 'relativistic twin experiment' again. Which physicist will be more successful in checking the time dilatation: the one who sends a kilogram of a radioactive substance, the one who sends a single nucleus of the substance, or the one who sends a kilogram of lead? How far are these physicists justified in saying that they affirmed the 'twin paradox'? Food for thought. Even that this thread is posted in the QM forum, I think it is not possible to get grips on what time is, if you do not clarify it first in a classical context. So my suggestion: keep QM out for the moment.

Yes, I must confess that I did not read all, found and unfound antique documents. I also must confess another error. I just searched for 'Lazarus' at Biblegateway, and saw verses in Luke and John. But, now you challenged me, I looked a bit better into them. The story of 'Lazarus' in Luke is not about the awakening of the dead Lazarus as described in John: he is a beggar in a parable (Luke 16:19). So we have only one documentation, and that only in the latest gospel of the NT. So here my corrected estimations: 1. 10% it is only in the latest gospel of the NT, written 70 years after Jesus death 2. 10% It is only mentioned in John 3. 0% it fits too well in the Christian agenda 4. 0% stories about miracle cures might fit every time, but we know by now there are no miracles, and that is true for all times.

You ask me? But don't forget, I gave a few points on documentation. If you find more, you will still multiply with 0 two times. That is still 0.

Of what? I suggest change, of course. Same as space is an abstraction of distance, or length (in 3 dimensions). So if we ask how much time has passed, we in fact ask how much change has happened, of course in a standardised system. How can an abstraction be a necessary condition?

Don't be to glad, Robittybob1. Let's take the event that Jesus woke up Lazarus (numbers refer to the criteria): 1. 50% it is not mentioned in Marc, nor by Paul 2. 40% It is only mentioned in Luke and John 3. 0% it fits too well in the Christian agenda 4. 0% stories about miracle cures might fit every time, but we know by now there are no miracles, and that is true for all times. Must I do the multiplication? Pity for you that can't take the positive point away... But you can give me a negative one here

Yes, the only difference is the point in time. So that makes the definition of time: measure of change. OK. If you want to play the hard way. We take two identical, closed systems. The temperature of the second oscillator will be slightly higher. And, btw, this isn't fair play. I said the systems were identical. When one stops after 1 cycle, and the other after 1000, they were not identical.

Sorry, Ten oz, you apply the math wrong. Let's just take one example: Did Jesus have a brother, James? Source shortly after the event: Paul, only at most 5 years after the event: 95% (contemporary would be 100%) Multiple sources: one gospel, one epistle of Paul, Josephus (twice): 95% (we have to add quite a few assumptions to explain why the sources say the same, i.e. go back to one (forged?) single source) Dissimilarity: 95% (before this stuff started to interest me I had not even imagined that a brother is mentioned in the bible! Jesus' mother was a virgin!) Fits in history: 100% of course, people always have had brothers. (Again, this criterion is only useful to filter out obvious mistakes) So 0.953 = 85% I won't do the rest, you get the idea. Sorry, this thread is about the question if Jesus existed. I showed you that based on the available sources we can be sure nearly 100%. Maybe we have one of the points wrong, but not the overall fact that he existed.

Yes. And the difference is the time. What other difference do you see?

Only because the times differed. Say, I get two boxes with radio active material in it. The person who gives them to me says that into both, exactly the same boxes, he did exactly the same amount of radium. Now in one box I measure that there is less radium left than in the other. Assuming the man told the truth, I can only conclude that he did the radium into the first box first. So even that the systems were exactly the same when filled, they were filled at different times. Now assume I fill both boxes with exactly the same amount of radium. I keep one box, the other I send on a 'relativistic twin journey'. When it comes back, I measure how much the contents of the boxes have changed. The one that was on the journey has more radium, so less change, so there passed less time for it. So: time is the measure of change.

How does time behave? My (simple?) opinion: time is a measure for change. Take 2 systems that are exactly the same. In one very much has changed compared to the initial situation, in another less. So in the first more time has passed.

It's a great site. So many simulations! Exactly right for the dark days...

Oh, my dear, Ten oz, now you have made a huge error. And you got a point for that too! Let's take your Caesar example: say we have 4 events of his life, and we are 99% sure that these events really happened. You are right that the chance of all these events having happened is 0.994 = 96%. But if we want to know if Caesar really existed, your calculation leads tot the conclusion that the more of this nearly sure events we know, the more unsure we get that Caesar really existed. If we have 100 events that we are 99% sure of then are only for 0.99100 = 37% sure that he existed??? No: we are only 37% sure that all these events happened. But we are (1 - 0.99)100 = 10-198% sure that he did not exist. Now to Jesus: your application of the criteria and the events is again too simplistic. E.g. the criterion fits time and place is true for every good historical novel. So it is only a negative criterion: if it does not fit, then it cannot be a real event. The opposite with the criterion of dissimilarity: the greater the contradiction between the event described and the Christian agenda, the greater the chance that the event really happened. More independent sources of course increase the chance, as the shorter time between the events described and the writing itself. So, very rough, assume that the chance of the reality of these 5 events is only 50% per event, then the chance that Jesus did not exist is (1 - 0.5)5 = 3%. Of course, I estimate that the chance that the event really happened is higher, which makes the chance of Jesus' non-existence even smaller. If you want my estimates, here they are: 1. Did Jesus come from Nazareth? 70% 2. Did Jesus have a brother, James? 85% 3. Was Jesus baptised by John the B? 75% 4. Was Jesus an apocalyptic preacher? 90% 5. Was Jesus crucified by Pilate? 95% Chance that Jesus existed: 99.99%. Of course, chance that they are all true is only 38%. But I am wondering what these kinds of calculations are really worth. Even in your (wrong) application of chances on the criteria per event you are wrong. If you say that the chance of every event being true is only 24%, then for the 5 events this makes a chance of (1 - 0.24)5 = 25% that Jesus did not exist, so 75% that he did exist. Still not too bad.

Well, Ten oz, if just giving wild estimated points of probability to past events, then I already discovered Bayes calculus during my primary school time... But I leave that to probability calculation experts. I am not, but I think it is more than what you do here. You method in general is completely wrong. First I gave a few examples of how the criteria are used, and under point 3 I mentioned the events that historians take as 'really happened'. So, let's firs repeat the criteria: Sources shorter after the events are better than later (contemporary are of course the best). Multiple independent sources Dissimilarity Fit in the time and place where the events took place. Then there are the events that we want to test: Jesus came from Nazareth he had a brother James he met John the Baptist he was an apocalyptic preacher he was crucified under Pilate. As short for the source I will use: Mark (the gospel), L for what is only found in Luke, M for what is only found in in Matthew, and Q for what is both found (in nearly the same wordings!) in Luke and Matthew, John for his gospel 1. Did Jesus come from Nazareth? It is mentioned in all sources, the earliest just states the fact, L and M try to force Jesus to be born in Bethlehem (according to the prophecies, it is David's city). It is also stated as fact by John. Parts of the gospels originate from Aramaic, which was spoken in the (rural) areas where Nazareth was supposed to be. This is consistent with the fact that all gospels tell that the followers of Jesus were mainly farmers and peasants. The question if Nazareth really existed is only marginally important, because nobody would phantasise that the messiah would come from a small unknown hamlet in Galilee. 2. Did Jesus have a brother, James? This is stated by an (authentic) epistle of Paul, and it is mentioned in at least one of the gospels. Another gospel says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. We also have the completely independent source of Josephus (in two different versions!). From the epistle of Paul one can derive that it was at most 5 years after Jesus' death, that he met James (and Peter). That is not contemporary, but it is close. It also doesn't fit the idea that Mary was a virgin. The idea that Mary, after Jesus' birth was having sex does not fit in Christian ideas, before even works less... 3. Was Jesus baptised by John the B? The event is described in all gospels. We also have independent knowledge of John's existence from Josephus (his paragraph on John is even longer than that on Jesus. It does not fit in a Christian agenda, where Jesus, as son of God, would need to have his sins washed away. On the other side, it fits perfectly with the fact that John was also a believer in the coming kingdom of God, and that the earlier Christian were apocalyptic too, which one can find in the Pauline epistles. So the least we may conclude that he met John. But he very probable was baptised, because no Christian would fantasise such an idea. 4. Was Jesus an apocalyptic preacher? Mark, Q, L and M all state that Jesus said that the apocalypse would come very soon, probably in his own lifetime. Paul also states this in his epistles. John, as the latest gospel is not so clear about it, because as the latest gospel (nearly 70 years after Jesus' death), it was obvious that the apocalypse did not happen yet, and that in fact Jerusalem was destroyed, instead of heavenly powers throwing the Romans out of Palestine. Other Christians would have done the same, or reinterpret these sayings of Jesus even more (which in fact happened, and is still happening). Conclusion: Jesus really said these things. 5. Was Jesus crucified by Pilate? Independently mentioned by all gospels, by Paul, by Josephus and Tacitus. It fits perfectly in the time and place, but does not fit the idea of a messiah at all. With that we already have passed all 4 criteria. So how many points? And then: say you estimate this a little differently (an understatement I suppose...). With every added probable event, the chances that Jesus really existed increases. What you say is true: with every added event, with not 100% probability, the chance that the 'whole package' is true decreases. But not the fact that Jesus existed. Now you must compare the hypothesis that Jesus existed with other hypothesis how all these stories, in this form (its consistencies and its inconsistencies), the for Christians unpleasant events that are described, the suddenly arising of Christianity in such a short time, and show how and why this all happened. Verily, I say to you, the assumption that there really was such a person is much more probable than that it was all fantasy, be it naturally grown by mass phenomena under the Jews in those days, or worked out by a few people. We would have found other stories. Just to add, once again: I am not a Christian, I do not believe in God, and I think that what historians have to say about Jesus is far away of what most modern day Christians believe. I think this is a better basis of criticising Christianity than just deny that Jesus existed.

Hi Ten oz, Very good that you took the challenge. I hope I can clarify why historians think that Jesus existed, in contrast with your application of these criteria. Of course, contemporary is better, but shortly after is better than very long after. Especially if you see that the sources as they get longer after the events described, are becoming more fantastic (Infancy gospel of Thomas) or less descriptive and more theological (gospel of John). The longer there is between the writing down of the source and the events that are described, the more imprecise and exaggerated they will be. The known gospels are not written in the same time. (As small aside here: only for this reason it is wrong to treat the NT as one source.) This clearly visible change in the gospels (not just the 4 that got into the NT) shows a tendency, from which you can extrapolate back (infrapolate?) to what the original events might have been. That is not specially good for finding truths, but it is good for formulating hypotheses. Also Paul mentions how he met Peter the apostle, and James, the brother of Jesus. This is pretty close to contemporary. And as we have more sources that Jesus had a brother called James (a gospel, Josephus), we can be pretty sure he did exist. As said, the gospels are not one source. There have been about hundred gospels, but theologians in about the 4th century decided that these are the most authoritative. We don't have to believe them, of course they chose them also on theological grounds. But it is clear that the gospels do not speak with one voice. There are so much differences between the gospels in the NT alone, that they cannot be correct all 4 of them. Based on textual analysis, one comes to the following picture of the sources: (I hope a picture says more than words...) So there are 4 sources for the 3 synoptic gospels: 'Unique to Luke', 'Unique to Matthew', 'Double tradition' (also called Q) and Mark. That they are not one source is also clear that the gospels (not just the 4 in the NT) are mentioned in ancient, but different times in documents of theologians. This is one method to estimate when they were written. Another error you make is to apply the 'the more the better' criterion on complete gospels, instead on the individual events described. Two extreme examples: Jesus crucifixion is described in all the NT gospels (and in Paul's epistles, and in Josephus...), so it might very well be true. The story with the 'Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her' is only found in John. This story forms also a style break in the gospel of John, so it surely did not happen, and was added by a later Christian scribe. Again, you must not apply the criteria on the sources as a whole, but on the individual events described in it. The examples you mention are exactly such events that do not make it as probably true, because they fit too well in the Christian agenda. But the 'facts' I mentioned before do pass the criterion of dissimilarity, because they do not fit: Jesus is born in Nazareth. Nazareth was at best a very small village, where just simple peasants lived. But the messiah should come from Bethlehem, according to the prophecies. And what do we see? Mark, the oldest gospel, lets it be by just mention 'At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan'. But Luke fantasises a story that should explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but still came from Nazareth. Matthew does it in another way (Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, but after their flight to Egypt, return to Nazareth). So both try to change history in a way that it fits the prophecy. So alltogether: Jesus very probably came from Nazareth. John the Baptist: it just does not fit that Jesus, as son of God, is baptised by John. It should be the other way round. Again, we have different sources for this fact, Josephus mentions John the Baptist even more extensively than Jesus, and John held also apocalyptic views. Jesus was crucified. It just doesn't fit in the ideas in those days what a messiah was, that Jesus was crucified. A messiah should be a king who would restore the relationship between God and the people of Israel, and e.g. would throw the Romans out of Palestine. Instead he was crucified (by the Romans!). Followers of Christ had to bend their theology in extreme ways to adapt to this fact. (Therefore Christianity has still the most unbelievable theology of all world religions.) Jesus as apocalyptic preacher. In Mark you find the most sayings of Jesus that the Kingdom of God is imminent, even might happen in Jesus' lifetime. The later the gospels, the less this point is stressed. 'The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!' 'Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.' 'Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'(Mark) And possibly the only mentionings by John: 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.' and 'Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.'. No indication when that will be. Why? The Christians of course notice that the apocalypse did not come. But the citations are in the synoptic gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew). A Christian scribe would have changed that if he wanted it to fit his ideas. So, it is very probable Jesus said such things. Yes, the events fit: the Romans under Pilate had no problem to crucify trouble makers, even without any process. There were several groups under the Palestinian Jews who believed in the coming Kingdom of God (John the Baptist, the Essenes, the Pharisees), so the facts fit in the cultural climate of those days. We find traces of Aramaic in the gospels, and Aramaic was the language in rural Palestine in those days. Nazareth was in such a rural area, and we see that Jesus followers were mainly peasants and fishermen. I am looking forward to your calculations.