Illuvatar

[Brimvalir]

If it was Eru in the beginning (also called Illuvatar) where did he come from ??

[Finrod Felagund]

It's basically the same idea as the Christian God, he was just always there. There's really no other explanation for it.

[Ñólendil]

I suppose you could say Time was not created yet and the question "where did Eru come from" is invalid. Eru was before Time, there was no Time. Before The Beginning. Under this line of thinking I can dimly see why Eru could be conceived of as having been there "just because".

[Wayfarer]

You're going to give yourself headaches. ;)

[markedel]

Actually it's not just because-in monothesistic religions God Exists, and we can't know why, because unlike God we are finite.

[Arathorn]

yeah...kinda like a glass trying to fill itself with an ocean

[Andúril]

Ñólendil:

You shouldn't say that Eru was before time, because before is a measure of time, thus you will be describing him within the constraints of time.

Rather perhaps say that Eru exists outside of time. He created Arda, which has a property of change, which is interepreted by us mortals as time.

Although this is how it is in the books, it is much more complicated than this, as well as being fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

[bropous]

Good points both, Nolendil and Anduril. And I agree that one can only give oneself a headache going too far down this theological, existential path....

Sorta like "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

[Khadrane]

In response to the chicken and the egg question, the chicken came first. God created the chicken (along w/ the rest of the animals) and told it to reproduce after it's own kind.

[Radagast The Brown]

but if God created the egg first and the chicken came out of the egg?
I think bropous is right.

[Wayfarer]

A better way of saying it would be that Iluvatar is outside time.

Or that time/change is a property of arda, and eru is outside arda.

[bropous]

Actually I can quote a different mythology which stated that "Big Juju" commanded that the egg break open and revealed her original plan inside: A chicken.

Geez. can't a person recognize a rhetorical question when they sees one? ;)

[Andúril]

The egg/chicken debate is quite interesting, I must admit. I haven't really given much thought to it, but here's my take:

The answer lies in the inherent preconceptions. In other words, this question will lead to one of two possible answers, each logically sound, but subjectively different.

Take the egg. If one assumes that the theory of evolution is correct, then we can make another two assumptions, that is, that the chicken had evolved from something else, and that the mode of birth was the egg. Thus, if our premises are correct, the egg came first, because the animal from which evolved the chicken would not be accurately defined as a chicken, and seeing as chicken has now been taken out of the equation, we are left with the egg.

Or, perhaps you are a christian, for example, and believe that God created all animals. Here it would be obvious that the chicken came first, unless you are of the position that the bible is not sufficiently informative about the actual creation of animals, in that possibly creatures born through the mode of eggs were created as eggs - then of course you would find yourself back at the drawing board. However, the possibility of this occuring is so small, that it would be justifiable to assume God as having created the animal in adult or slightly younger age (here again there is not adequate info).

My opinion?

The egg.

PS. There is a hole in my thinking: If we are to take egg as just that and not specifically a chicken egg, then we are fine. But narrowing down the type of egg would actually bring us back to the original question.

Thus mine head now hurts.

[bropous]

See, I told you that you'd give yourself a headache if you went too far down this theological existentialist path. I hate to say I told you so, but...... ;)

Anyways, great follow-up post, Anduril.

[Brimvalir]

Illuvatar invented time - talk about a high IQ :P

[Ñólendil]

Good points Anduril. You're absolutely correct.

[Andúril]

Thanks.

[Dwarven Sen]

I've always thought that the chicken came last and that illuvatar was everything. I don't understand I simply know. Time does not exist because it is only relative to yourself

[Andúril]

Time does not exist because it is only relative to yourselfActually, Dwarven Sen, that is similar to the arguments I have heard, which go : Nothing exists if there is no-one to observe anything.And which analogy best describes this theory? The tree-in-forest one, of course!!

I don't want to delve too deep into this, in fact I don't even want to start - lets just say that that it is probably impossible to determine, or prove, unless you use the term observe in one definite way, that is, to physically be there, to be in viewable and/or audible distance of the occurence, at the time of the occurence. Otherwise we could use a video camera and view the occurence later, and that would not be observation in the same sense - then we could prove the tree-in-forest thingy. Or maybe not...

But I digress.

What is time? In my opinion time is change, i.e. if nothing ever changed at all, there would be no such concept as time, everything would be in a natural frozen state.

So how do we know that time exists? We have observed the state of an object at one point, and then find the object different when observing it at a later stage. Obviously later is a measure of time, so observation of anything is not even necessary, as observation itself is only possible inside a changing environment.

But to say that time does not exist because it is only relative to yourself, I don't think that is true. The fact that time does not differ from one persons perspective to another, shows that it is objective, once we have come to terms with knowing that the actual measure of time that we use (minutes/seconds etc) is a concept created and agreed upon by human minds. Also, you can replace time in your statement with change, so that change does not exist because it is only relative to yourself. The fact that you have made a positive assertion, by saying it is, shows that in at least one sense time/change does in fact exist. After that, the similarity between one persons perception of this change and anothers shows the objective nature of it, hence an objective and not relative existence, although both co-exist.

Perhaps I am not understanding your statement correctly, Dwarven Sen. Care to expound?

PS why do you think the chicken came last?

[Dwarven Sen]

Well I thought the egg came first because as the DNA particles of the first organisms replicated before they formed a being there had to be a method of protecting the unformed organism from the volcanic gases and pollution that was around. hey it was even worse than todays.

[Dwarven Sen]

Hey this computer stopped me typing!!!

Anyway time is relative only to yourself but peolpe affect others so if you hang around in biology lessons eventually everyone will agree that it felt like it was a year long
There is the tree in wood theory of course to which I totlaly agree but I prefer the sound of one hand clapping physical impossibilties. There was a stargate sg1 episode where there time was slowed down by a black hole and everyone was working at relatively different times

By the way I see that have put alot of thought into this thank you for your time relatively speaking:confused: :)

[Arathorn]

I think it was the chicken. But the explanation is, I think, inappropriate for this board.

[ged]

Time... my favourite subject :-) I always found it funny that science has no big problems dealing with time (as a measure), but we humans always find (psychological) time paradoxons. I think the main problem is not the concept of time itself. I think the paradoxical behaviour is caused by the concept of "present", as contrast to "past" and "future".

In other words, I think the critical "human" (or "elvish" :-) mind-aspect of time is that our minds sense one precise point of time as "present time". We seem to have something like a "sense" for time, which does not seem to have an organic representation, but is an intrinsic (!) element of what we call "consiousness".

Eru is "out of time"... I think this means that Eru is not "bound" to time, does not sense one point of time as present, but all points of time as "present" (in the sense of "real", of "being there"). An analogy is our feeling that all locations (even if out of our sight) are existing.

An interesting aspect is that this positive interpretation "Eru stands out of time" can also be interpreted as a failure: "Eru has no sense for present time" - he can only experience change in an abstract sense. Consider looking at a mountain. In an abstract sense you can interpret the change of height as "change", but only by climbing it you can actually "feel" this change; this is a mapping into time where our "time-sense" can be applied.

So I wonder if the "creation of time" should rather be considered as "creation of a sense of present time". As I stated above, in my opinion this "sense of present time" (the fact we feel now as now :-) is an intrinsic feature of our consiousness, so we could also say that Eru created consiousness. He created beings that could sense a certain point of time as present time. Definitely, elves as well as humans got this gift. An interesting question is: how about the Valar? I think they were the first ones who got consciousness.

If you look at the very beginning of Tolkiens history, it is interesting to see that Eru invented a musical theme (which, by itself, is static - it does not change). He needed something/somebody who could transform the theme into actual music (which is dynamic). So, the Valar somehow allowed Eru to experience - directly or indirectly - present time.

It is also very interesting to ask if Eru itself can be a conscious being. If the ability (interpreted as gift, not doom) to feel one point of time as present time is intrinsic to consciousness, Eru would not have it. His "mind" worked on a completely different level then.

It is also interesting to look at the sequence "Valar-Elves-Humans" as a way to increase the "consciousness-level" more and more - in the sense that beings that feel the present time as more essential might have a more consious mind. The climax of this level, of course, is mortality. So, mortality appears as final representation of consiousness - the gift Eru made to humans. Finally, without a feeling for "present time", there would be no mortality. Nobody of us would call a stick "mortal" because it "starts" a a certain location and "ends" at another location at some geographical distance. If we could feel all points of time as "really existing", being mortal would be no difference to the fact we have a physical finite local extension (6 ft for example :-).

This interpretation takes some power away from Eru. This is not really a contradiction though. Tolkien himself writes that Valars, for example, could not "understand" the whole concept of elves and humans (which are in the third theme, while the Valar only know the first theme completely). So, elves and humans have something miraculous "more" than the Valar. Any maybe Eru created all of them because he lacked consciousness (in our sense). Mortal beings, like us, would then be a completion of Eru.

Of course that all applies to God as well as to Eru... *smile*

Ged

[Dwarven Sen]

Sorry Arathorn I'll not talk for long.

Well Ged (by the way have you read the earthsea quartet by any chance)I think that
1:-You put way too much thought into that but it was very interesting
2:-I think that Eru, being all powerful and all tuneful, was a creature of time. He could see everything and when i say everything i mean everything including every possibilty every consequence and every destiny. I think that he lived outside of time so he never aged and could live forever. All his offsprings including elves and men retained some of his power.
Time is everything and nothing so in the void there was nothing because everything was everywhere else and everywhen else. We have a (ultimately wrong) sense of time because we cannot escape it and we cannot see outside of it. We do not see the end or beginning of everything because we have been caught up inside it.
By the way I said men retained his immortality for one reason- we are talking about middle earth and supposedly a very long time ago and they still exist within our subconcious making them living things
I have to go now because the brain power has turned my head to jelly.

[Arathorn]

It's ok Dwarven Sen. I meant that I had an explanation but it's beyond PG13.

[Dwarven Sen]

Oh do go on. I wont say anything. I want to know what you have to say pppplllllllleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssseeeeee !!!!!!!!!
no one else is listening, honest

[Arathorn]

I checked your profile and you should be old enough, Dwarven. I'll send you a pm. ;)

[Dwarven Sen]

Yes I am old enough. I am doing my A levels you know. Iam doing Physics Chemistry Maths and Biology and will go to university in less than two years

[Dwarven Sen]

(After reading....)

Hehehehehehe....(etc)

I totally change my opinion

Hehehehehehe..................

[bropous]

dwarven Sen, if you are currently working on your A levels, then why in the heck do you write like a four-year-old? I noted your experimentation with puncutation; KEEP USING IT!!!

It's like reading bloody eecummings or joyce.......yecccchhhh!!!!

[Elfmaster XK]

Originally posted by Arathorn
It's ok Dwarven Sen. I meant that I had an explanation but it's beyond PG13.

Im intrigued to know this theory. Please tell me too! You can't tell Sen and not me!!

Also, Bropous don't know her writing, she's only just started using intelligible words!!

P.S. I think the chicken came first

[Elfmaster XK]

hEE HEE!
I agree with that theory, you've obviosly thought of it from a practical side.

My idea was that the first organisms that came out of the sea were not in eggs, so why should it be different for a chicken (egg)?
Your theory is better though!!!!!

[Arathorn]

'told you it was beyond PG13.:rolleyes: BTW, it only occured to me that Dwarven Sen is also a she.:o :p

[Elfmaster XK]

Yes, she is. I get confused too. I only just realisd Somwone else was a she when reading the song thread. Those songs are great! I'm goonna get Sen to have an avatar photo soon though. Then there will be no ambiguity. (Speeling?)

[Dwarven Sen]

Leave my punctuation alone. I do science Alevels not english(though I did get an A at GCSE) but I do science so I only write notes and they only have to be readable to me.

I AM A SHE AND I'M GETTING ANNOYED THAT PEOPLE CANT TELL

[Finrod Felagund]

Eru is very interestin in that only twice did he directly intervene in Arda.
1 To sanctify the dwarves and give them life
2 To change the world when the Numenoreans landed in Aman

He sent his messengers into Arda to do his work and they usually consulted him in most matters.

[Dwarven Sen]

Finrod, are you stalking Eru? He will only intervene when the offspring of his thought are flumoxed or naughty. Notice people, punctuation!!!!!!!!!

[bropous]

Hmmmm. Sometimes I forget some of the age groups with whom I commune through the Moot.

Iluvatar DID exist outside of time, independent of the construct of the chronological framework in which we all agree to exist. Time is not something we can currently sense in and of itself; we only can deduce its effect on things. In the same way, we cannot see the wind, but see trees swaying and know it is there; we see things age and know a force is acting upon them.

No, time itself is not the force, time is not the force of decay. Decay to existence in the time framework is basically what length is to a line, breadth to a plane, depth to an object. It is a function of how long an object exists in the time framework.

Zo. Eru/Iluvatar existed before the framework of time, existed during its own existence, and assumedly, would continue to exist after time ceased to be recognized as a theoretical construct.

Interesting that Tolkien would choose music as the framework for creation of an existence grounded in time. Music is closely regulated by time, and without the underlying chronological framework it becomes cacaphony. P'raps an existence in physical form not existing in the framework of time would also seem cacapohinc to our present level of development.

[Andúril]

Is it not possible that Iluvatar aheres as well to his own particular theoretical construct that is time? This time property would operate in a similar way to ours, but the two would be separate. Obviously Iluvatar's time would outlast our own, likewise it existed before our own (and simultaneuosly with our own)

Is it feasable to say that, in relation to Iluvatar's environment, he has a timeline, or a set sequence of events, which would be perceived as incoherent from our viewpoint?

[Dwarven Sen]

Isn't that just Fate or Destiny?

[Andúril]

If we call it those terms, then fundamentally, fate or destiny, or the events prescribed by them, are actually manifestation of Iluvatar's will.

[Dwarven Sen]

Wow, he truly is all powerful. He can control his own fate and everybody elses. Thats the kind of guy you want in charge of the world. It's good he is

[Andúril]

....omnipotent?

[Dwarven Sen]

Exactly. All powerful and in many different words.

[bropous]

Well, it works well in myth. :D

[Andúril]

Thats the kind of guy you want in charge of the world.Not if he's non-omnibenevolent, that is...

[Wulažg]

It's not that he isn't benevolent, he just wants the AinŸlidal‘ corrected to its former glory. He does nothing by his own devices after the creation of the Dwarves. Even taking Morgoth back in chains was done by F‘onw‘, the sone of Manw‘. Delegation seems to be a major part of this scenario. It means things get messed up sometimes but at least Illuvator doesn't get the blame.

[bropous]

That's the benefit of having underlings!

Welcome to the Moot, Wulažg.

[Starr Polish]

Er...going back to time.

Time has always seemed wavy and unsteady to me, but I think that in actuality, it is our psyche that is unsteady, and time is constant. When I put myself under extreme conditions/stress (ie competing in a long race in track) my mental functions just kind of stop keeping track of time. I rarely have any sense of time, speed, or even pain until I have lowered my stress level (in the case of running, about the time I can breath well enought to stand normally)

[Dwarven Sen]

I think we have indeed come to a decision that time is a confusing matter and that illuvatar is somehow connected to it.
I think he got a little sulky when the dwarves were created.But hey he's still in charge and he isn't prepared to hold grudges forever like the valar. I mean you have to be a little twisted to condemn noldor to the east for ever.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Dwarven Sen
I think we have indeed come to a decision that time is a confusing matter and that illuvatar is somehow connected to it.
I think he got a little sulky when the dwarves were created.But hey he's still in charge and he isn't prepared to hold grudges forever like the valar. I mean you have to be a little twisted to condemn noldor to the east for ever. The Valar didn't condem the Noldor to Middle-earth forever. The Noldor went to Middle-earth in defiance of the Valar, and the Valar placed a ban on their retun that was eventually lifted. The Valar never forsook the Noldor after they left, and they had pity for them and loved them still.

[Andúril]

I need clarification.

At the end of the Music of the Ainur, Iluvatar got angry and told Melkor that whatever he did, good or bad, would just end up being what Iluvatar wanted to happen. I may be wrong. I probably am.

But, seeing as it was only the Ainur present at the singing of the Music, does this will/fate thing apply to the rest of Arda's people?

Are elves, men, dwarves etc also destined to fulfill Iluvatar's doom? In my opinion no, because otherwise he would not have needed to intervene with the Numenoreans.

But then again, Eru intervened with Aule, so there goes my thining.

I must lie down now...

[azalea]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
Er...going back to time.

Time has always seemed wavy and unsteady to me, but I think that in actuality, it is our psyche that is unsteady, and time is constant. When I put myself under extreme conditions/stress (ie competing in a long race in track) my mental functions just kind of stop keeping track of time. I rarely have any sense of time, speed, or even pain until I have lowered my stress level (in the case of running, about the time I can breath well enought to stand normally)
Jumping in:
It is my belief that time does not exist, it is simply a human invention, since we are quite self-centered and must always order things (existance) into managable chunks. I believe CHANGE exists, but not time. I mean, animals just live their lives, change happens, and they die, more come to take their place (or not, as the case may be).
That's why I thought the whole Y2K was kind of funny, I mean those who thinking the end of the world was happening just because the calendar was turning to 2000. Really, that number just came form the fact that we use a base 10 number system.
We exist and live our lives within a framework of reality that we make sense of through our interactions with others. We help ourselves by counting how many times the sun rises and sets.

[Wulažg]

Regardless of whether time is a human(humanoid) idea/concept, it can still be manipulated with some degree of accuracy. One's or other's sense of time can be altered. If it can be altered then some things can be assumed about time.

[azalea]

I was thinking about it in terms of the question posed earlier "Does Iluvatar have some kind of time framework" and that got me thinking about time existing at all outside of humanity. 'If humans didn't exist would time exist? If Arda, the sun and moon didn't exist, would time exist?'
I don't think Iluvatar would need a time framework as he is "omnipotent", in other words has the ability to control all (note that I didn't say he DOES control all). He exists AS time in some ways because of this control. I guess.

[Andúril]

But, if spatial change occurs, and someone/something is around to perceive this change, they would also have perceived a theoretical construct, or perhaps they unknowingly used this construct to make sense of change.

Obviously this construct depends entirely on the way the observer perceives the change. Humans perceive a point (n) which is now and then perceives point (o) which is now, so that point (n) is in the past (it is not now - instead it is prior to (o) in the sequence of events).

I do not doubt that if a being is able to comprehend and perceive change, that being also uses or senses a theoretical construct of time. However, if said being cannot comprehend or perceive change, that does not mean that there is no change. It just means that the being does not have this theoretical construct.

Consider a rock. Can the rock perceive change? Most probably not. Therefore the rock will not have a sense of time. But that does not mean that time does not exist.

If a universe underwent constant spatial change, but there was nothing in the universe to perceive the change, there would exist no time constructs, yet time would exist. How do I know this? Because I have already stated that spatial change is occuring. Because I have perceived the change.

Time = measure of change

If I can perceive change, I can sense time.

[BeardofPants]

Just to throw in another loophole, What if time is not linear? What if time exists as a series of possible outcomes? Who determines these outcomes?

[Dwarven Sen]

Time. If the sun did not exist, there would be no time. Elves and humans created time and so the ones that came before them, ie. the maiar, valar and eru, would not understand the concept and would therefore not be subjected to its limitations.
the rock would not understand time, but it would feel the change as its existance progressed. for example erosion.

[Andúril]

Elves and humans created time and so the ones that came before them, ie. the maiar, valar and eru, would not understand the concept and would therefore not be subjected to its limitations.As soon as some of the Ainur exited the Timeless Halls, they would become constrained to time. In fact, I submit that the Timeless Halls are in fact not timeless, because the Music of the Ainur exhibited change, therefore time. Iluvatar listened to the music - wasn't happy, lifted his hand. Listened some more - wasn't happy, lifted both hands. This is a sequence of events.

Anyway, even if time did not exist in the Timeless Halls, the Ainur who came to Arda were now no longer in that place. Nowhere to my knowledge does it mention any of the Ainur being above the limitations of time - they are aware of it just like everyone else is.What if time is not linear?I'm not sure what you are saying. Could you explain? If time is not linear, then as a graph it would appear curved, or wavy - that would be very strange. But, it would only be strange if we as observers were only able to comprehend linear time. If time was wavy, and we percieved wavy time, I don't see anything strange or incoherent.

What would be incoherent is time running backwards (i.e. effect and cause) lol!What if time exists as a series of possible outcomes?Who determines these outcomes?In other words, fate, or destiny? Is it necessary that someone determines these outcomes? But what does a particular sequence of events (a), as opposed to another, (b), have to do with time as a construct? Time applies to both (a) and (b).

[Dwarven Sen]

so many questions and so few answers.
surely the one who controls fate is indeed eru. i think that time is less similar to change, but to acceleration(velocity/change in time). this means that the timeless halls, althow changing, did not have a direction to change in. as velocity is a vector, this means that there was no velocity, and no acceleration, therefore no time.
if time is indeed nonlinear, and works more on a sine wave then it is constantly changing direction, therefore there was no velocity, and no acceleration, therefore no time. time has to be linear.

[azalea]

Perhaps BoP means that instead of a set series of events (a line), it is more like an infinite number of rays originating in a single point, each one representing a possible outcome, and to reach any one of these outcomes a different set of events would need to happen.

Going back to the rock, I still am not convinced that time exists outside of the human (or elvish) mind. It is not TIME that causes it to change, but, again, a series of INTERACTIONS (wind, weather) that causes the erosion. If those elements did not exist, would the rock still erode (it's physical nature notwithstanding)?

[azalea]

No, wait, I don't like the rays either.

Here it is. Time (assuming it exists) is PLANAR rather than linear.
an infinite number of possible outcomes exists based on which direction is taken from any given point (that is, what specific events occur) This is of course also assuming that INFINITY exists;)

[Wulažg]

Assuming that infinity exists is questionable at best. Infinity does not exist, it is a concept that for some is very difficult. If you are trying to say that the "infinity" you are talking about is an end goal, then there are an infinite number of endpoints. Unless the plane is on a diagonal so that there is only one endpoint. Or better yet (mathmatically) it edges on an imaginary plane so that there are a limited(finite) number or outcomes that truly exist no matter how many appear.

[Dwarven Sen]

OK, I believe in the infinite, just as I believe in oblivion, eternity, the force, and flying pigs. Leave the infinite alone!!! At the moment we are doing quantum mechanics and they said that they wanted there to be one all powerful force(Which there is), and that particles live forever. How can they live forever if there is no forever??????

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by azalea
No, wait, I don't like the rays either.

Here it is. Time (assuming it exists) is PLANAR rather than linear.
an infinite number of possible outcomes exists based on which direction is taken from any given point (that is, what specific events occur) This is of course also assuming that INFINITY exists;)

I was merely pointing out how, when mapping particles, they tend to form both waves, and particles. How is this possible? Does it pertain to particles existing, as you say, in a planar existence, in which we impinge our linear perceptions onto this relationship? That is all.

[Dwarven Sen]

planar is different to linear however. Particles and energy waves are interchangable, only as long as the physics rules are bent, not broken.

[azalea]

Actually I was using "planar" as a metaphor rather than a mathematical or actual physical model.

[Tulkas2002]

We cannot say that particles last forever. we could only guess at best. the only way to say with certainty is by observation and we cannot do that due to our mortality.

[Blackheart]

Particles don't last forever. That's already been calculated.

They do last a very long time however....

[Blackheart]

Also Also, time isn't a strictly linear axis in this reality either.

It's a manifestation of a 5th dimensional entity intruding into 4 space. (As is most of the universe including matter/energy/space/time - all pretty much the same thing in one form or another)

With the addition of n dimensional frames of reference, time can exhibit loops, and even branches.

So if you are looking for a "real world" frame of reference for the timeless halls, an nspace is the likeliest answer.

[Wulažg]

Of course time is weird. It could only fit into a model if the world were perfect or if we had taken into account everything. We know that that isn't going to happen so we have to put extra dimensions in there. The question of the day is: What does n equal? Is it partially imaginary? Do we even need to get into complex numbers if n is high enough? Is n even finite? Are there limmits to the number of dimensions in the universe or does the next one up always affect the lower dimensions and so on?

[Blackheart]

42- no really.

bah, currently best esitmates are n=16 for our current reality, though it may have been higher in the remote past.

No one's gonna figure anything out about time until we get a working quantum theory of gravity anyway, so why bother -

N is good enough for for a description of the timeless halls.

[TomFoolOfATook]

This debate is probably giving God a headache

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by TomFoolOfATook
This debate is probably giving God a headache I don't know about God, but the moderator has one.:p

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by TomFoolOfATook
This debate is probably giving God a headache

Normally, I'd kick your butt for saying that, but since it's not the anti-theist thread, why don't you come over there so I can kick you? :D

Just to clarify earlier post (posted when I had a distinct lack of sleep)...

Particles are paradoxical, they exist in both point (a) and point (b), at the same time. This is the wave/particle duality effect. This suggests that the linear notion of time that we perceive (we are too big to perceive it in any other way, other than being linear)... is just that. A notion.

What would be incoherent is time running backwards (i.e. effect and cause)

Funny you should say that... All arguments are based on the good ol' cause and effect mechanism... and yet, it's beginning to look like the "cause" and "effect" are a little more complicated than that (ref wave/particle paradox)...

In other words, fate, or destiny? Is it necessary that someone determines these outcomes? But what does a particular sequence of events (a), as opposed to another, (b), have to do with time as a construct? Time applies to both (a) and (b).

It does. But, how? Time as perceived as linear, along with cause and effect are problematic, because particles are not subject to linear constraints.

Take the example of a cat in a gas chamber: if the cat has a conscious thought, it will trigger the machine to release the gas, and the cat will die. In one 'reality', the machine registers the "pings!" of neurons firing and gases the cat. In the other instance, the machine doesn't, and the cat lives. AT THE SAME TIME. If there is no force, no sense of development from cause and effect, then why? How is Time acting upon the perception of reality? *Bangs head against wall*

... *sigh* Offtopic again...

*Takes box and leaves*

[Wulažg]

Yes, particlesdo not have to move through time linearly, but then everything is different when you get to really small things. Anyway, how does a matrix of neurons give us a free will? Intelligence? How exactly does that work? If that matrix of neurons gives us a free will, then does that mean that lizards have a free will too?

[Blackheart]

Errr- there's really no such things as particles... sighs.

They're really just quanta packets - a probalistic estimate of where the enrgy concentration probably is...

That's why they seem to exist in more than one place at once.

But I can assure you non-causal events do happen- you live in the middle of one right now.

As for free will, it is a metaphysical concept that cannot be proven empirically, but you CAN roughly calculate the necessary range of options and the level of conciousness necessary to take advantage of it if it does exist.

[Earniel]

Ow, my poor aching head.....

[Wulažg]

So why are we talking about physics if all these metaphysical concepts cannot be proved with physical concepts?

[Arathorn]

...to reveal the physics dabblers of the moot, I guess.

[Blackheart]

Probably...

Though I think it started with the task of trying to determine something about the nature of a creator from studying his creation....

And then comparing it with the known universe, which suffers from a metaphysical problem, the nature of knowledge.

[Wulažg]

How can we compare Arda with the known universe without serious adaptations though? I mean, we have to fast forward in Arda's history a lot before we get to the right physical and metaphysical state for comparing it to the known universe. Wouldn't the point of trying to figure out the creator from the creation be us figuring out Tolkien, the metacreator?? Shouldn't we be coming from the Tolkien angle as well to figure out Eru?

[Blackheart]

Well that's the whole point.

We can tell a bit about Tolkien from his works. Whether or not he ever envisioned himself as Eru, or even working through him while writing, is something I have no information on however.

But it's still sort of circular, how much can you really tell about Tolkien as a man from just the LOTR? When you get into his letters and journals and such, then you get a good deal more information.

But I don't know if he ever considered the actual physics of how time would work in Arda as opposed to what lay outside arda.

Most likely if he did, he would have ignored it in favor of a good storeyline. Which is probably all the information you need about Eru in order to solve the problem.

Go tell the universe that a bumblebee can't fly because it's physically impossible, and the universe will just laugh in your face.

[Dwarven Sen]

Actually he thought of himself as Beren.
I think he actually tried to keep his life and his stories separate, which is why LotR took so long to finish. So I doubt he saw himself as Eru.
Bumblebees shouldnt fly and Neekerbreekers shouldnt bite.

[Blackheart]

*Watches in fascination as a horde of neekeer breekers consume the dwarf and a horde of bumblebees carry off the bones*

I warned you about that....

[Sister Golden Hair]

That is true. Tolkien viewed himself as Beren, and his wife Edith as Luthien.

[Blackheart]

Don't doubt it at all, but does that mean that he never viewed himself as a prime creator?

Not enough information to tell.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Well, that's an interesting idea, but Tolkien was very religious, and I can't see him casting himself in the role of Eru.

[Blackheart]

Then what about as a Sub-creator?

As I said, I don't know if he ever did or not, but I still don't think he would have let a bit of physics stand in the way of a good story.

[TomFoolOfATook]

Of course he wouldnt cast himself as Eru. Tolkien was a hobbit all the way :D

[Blackheart]

Blargh. 'obbits is poison in months with R in them.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Then what about as a Sub-creator?
You mean as a Vala or Maia perhaps? I think not. I just don't think Tolkien saw himself that way. I think he was a simple man that tried to lead a simple life. He didn't really look at himself as being a greater being IMO. The part of the story that reflects him and his wife is Beren and Luthien. It is a fact that Tolkien had stated himself. As is discussed in another thread, the names of Beren and Luthien appear on his and his wifes headstones.

[Wulažg]

In LoR hetook the role of merely being the person who had translated Bilbo's book, so he could have thought of himself in that regard. I wish he had since then we could have had an entire LoR in elvish and that would make my life so much easier.

[Blackheart]

He may have never envisioned himself as creator or subcreator, but he certainly acted in those roles.

So it's not an outlandish stretch of the imagination to compare them, at least as far as his writing goes.

[Dwarven Sen]

Bearing in mind that i'm shivering in fear of the neeker breekers here:-

Tolkien never thought of himself as any part of creation. He couldn't because he was very religious and it would have been like saying he was a god.
The valar and maiar are there as people for eru, like angels. he simpley thought of himself as a member of the earth, the middle earth. obviously he thought of himself as an important member, but a member nonetheless.

Bumblebees stay back, i've got an axe and i'm not afraid to use it

[Blackheart]

I still say he acted in those roles, whether he ever envisioned himself in the story or not.

So therefore you can make an argument that Eru would have a lot of Tolkien's ideas about what was "good" and supposed to happen, and what was "evil" and a result of free will acting contrary to his own.

[Wulažg]

No good writer can completely seperate their views form their works, especially in a universe like Arda which he spent so much time creating.

WooHoo! 100th post:D

[Dwarven Sen]

Well done.

Every character had an aspect of tolkien, because when you create a character you have to have an image in yuor head and that can only come from him, even if it is based on someone, they are in the authors head, and interpretted by him alone.

[TomFoolOfATook]

I agree with Dwarven Sen :) all characters are a product of the authors imagination and therefore have a bit of the author in them. (except the evil characters- they represent what the author despises)

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by TomFoolOfATook
I agree with Dwarven Sen :) all characters are a product of the authors imagination and therefore have a bit of the author in them. (except the evil characters- they represent what the author despises)

The evil would then still be "of the author", would it not?

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Blackheart


The evil would then still be "of the author", would it not?

I would say the evil would be "to the author" and not "of the author" as in what he percieves to be evil and not that he is evil.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Arathorn


I would say the evil would be "to the author" and not "of the author" as in what he percieves to be evil and not that he is evil.

Nay. It is his perceptions that are part of him, which makes it "of him".

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Nay. It is his perceptions that are part of him, which makes it "of him".

Very well. A different model which I now understand. I enjoy the play of words.
:rolleyes:

[Blackheart]

Words are all we've got. make 'em count I say! ;)

[Arathorn]

True. Anyway, this "evil" of the author becomes obvious when he's role-playing an evil character or writing about a character speaking. I get it now.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Arathorn
True. Anyway, this "evil" of the author becomes obvious when he's role-playing an evil character or writing about a character speaking. I get it now.

Aye. For example, he was quite disgusted with over industrialization, and look at how the orcs delight in industry and filth, and technolog that goes wizz bang!

And as for their military structure- heh, I wonder how he felt about the army?

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Blackheart

And as for their military structure- heh, I wonder how he felt about the army?

Not being an expert on military history, I wonder where he got the idea about the singing Rohirrim in battle.

[Blackheart]

The Volksungsaga most likely.

Actually, it's not that uncommon.

Going into a battle your're scared sh_tless. Even if you've done it before. Singing often makes as much damned sense as anything else you can do.

[TomFoolOfATook]

Tolkien was in the Army in WWI - lost several of his close friends - I dont recall him ever saying that he regretted serving his country ...

[Wulažg]

Authors sometimes portray evil characters with the evil inside themselves that they perceive, making it definitely "of them". It depends on the type of person the author is.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by TomFoolOfATook
Tolkien was in the Army in WWI - lost several of his close friends - I dont recall him ever saying that he regretted serving his country ...

Why should he?

But I certainly don't ever remember him sayng he was pleased by the military life. Or that he wasn't scared.

[Wulažg]

Prettymuch everybody isn't entirely satisfied with the military. It might be fine, but there is always beauracracy and that pisses people off for some reason.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wulažg
Prettymuch everybody isn't entirely satisfied with the military. It might be fine, but there is always beauracracy and that pisses people off for some reason.

What? you mean mindlessly doing things for mindless reasons, excpet when it comes to preseving your position?

Hmm- yes, I think we have discovered the true essence of evil! I shall soon start a burro.. a beuro... By gum! I'm even going to make it hard to spell!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart

By gum! I'm even going to make it hard to spell!

haha! But I'm going to start MY bureaucracy first.... Nyah!


Yes, I'm sure Tolkien was patriotic, but being draughted for the war was not by choice, you HAD to do it. And needless people died, due to poor military tat tics. I'm sure that would have scarred anyone for life, in terms of warfare, and bureaucracy.

[Blackheart]

*quiet whisper*

Shell-shocked..... yes I'm afraid so... Thinks he's living in some futuristic world.... he keeps raving about the "damned TV" and "not enough ketchup with his fries". ... .... Yes, I'm afraid it's a terminal case.

[Wulažg]

The sarcasm here is thidk ennough to cut with a rusty bayonet;)

[Blackheart]

Saw toothed? That's against the Geneva Convention!

[Wulažg]

I'll redo that post...


The sarcasm here is thick enough to cut with a Morgul-knife...;)

[Blackheart]

But... Morgul knives are against the Geneva convention also.... :confused:

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Blackheart
But... Morgul knives are against the Geneva convention also.... :confused:

The problem with enforcing the law against such knives is finding the evidence.

[Blackheart]

Say... you don't work for the UN do you? That sounds awfully familiar.....

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Say... you don't work for the UN do you? That sounds awfully familiar.....

Of the United Ninnyhammers, yes.:rolleyes:

'Anyone want to join? We will do our part to rid the world of ninnyhammers by beig united and admitting it and going to one place where it will be easier to hit everyone at once.:p

*Finalizes escape plan for later on*

[Blackheart]

Oh. Nevermind. I had some people I wanted to sell arms to, but they'll just have to make do with rocks...

[Dwarven Sen]

Arms? How about legs?

Brain wars?

Messy

Oo got to go, home time, never stay in school longer than you have to