I don’t really understand the your argument. Do you agree that what you call two possible worlds could not exist at the same point? Do you agree that the second world should follow the first world in act of creation? Isn’t that the very definition of time? A variable which separates two states of affair from each other and has a sense of directionality.There is a logically possible world where God exists and nothing else exists. There is a logically possible world in which God exists and a created order (i.e., with a temporal front-edge, a beginning materially ex nihilo) exists. These two things are both possible, but they are not compossibles. In the logically possible world in which God brings into existence a created order, there is no time at which that creation did not exist. There will be a time at which that creation began to exist. We cannot meaningfully talk about what is temporally prior to that point. We can meaningfully talk about what is causally prior to that point. Causal relations do not necessarily have temporal relations any more than causes and their effects necessarily have a chronological sequence.
. In other words, are you simply saying that the act of creation is unintelligible to us because of the necessary preconditions for human reasoning (that is, the necessary presuppositions without which human beings cannot reason at all), even if it did occur? I would hold some qualified disagreement with you there, if that’s your view, but then, at least, your view would make a lot more sense to me.Do you adopt a version of scientific anti-realism akin to what’s called structural realism? [see: Structural Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)]
While I think you could stand to gain something from being more meticulous about your wording, that argument is structurally (basically) alright. The problem with it is with the first premise. In fact, consider the theory of the classical standard big bang model; according to that model, time really did come into existence at the point at which the universe began to exist. Combine this standard cosmogonical model with an overarching multiverse hypothesis, such that our universe is embedded into a multiverse ensemble. In that case, the scientific theory entails that the multiverse we have in mind causally brought it about that time (as an element of our universe) came into existence.Well I can argue things as following. (1) I claim that there exist not a theory that can gives time as an emergent property. I consider all theories including theories in God’s knowledge. (2) The act of creation to my understanding is be based on God’s knowledge . (3) Time is an element of universe. (4) From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that the act of creation is logically impossible.
So to my understanding the act of creation is only possible if it is illogical/magical.
This is the word of a Nobel prize world winner:While I think you could stand to gain something from being more meticulous about your wording, that argument is structurally (basically) alright. The problem with it is with the first premise. In fact, consider the theory of the classical standard big bang model; according to that model, time really did come into existence at the point at which the universe began to exist. Combine this standard cosmogonical model with an overarching multiverse hypothesis, such that our universe is embedded into a multiverse ensemble. In that case, the scientific theory entails that the multiverse we have in mind causally brought it about that time (as an element of our universe) came into existence.
This theory is treated as both scientifically viable, and philosophically viable (i.e., intelligible). What reasons do you think you have for concluding that it is neither scientifically nor philosophically viable?
It is difficult for him to imagine a theory with time as emergent property. To me this is clearly impossible.Everyone in string theory is convinced…that spacetime is doomed. But we don’t know what it’s replaced by. We have an enormous amount of evidence that space is doomed. We even have examples, mathematically well-defined examples, where space is an emergent concept…. But in my opinion the tough problem that has not yet been faced up to at all is, “How do we imagine a dynamical theory of physics in which time is emergent?” …All the examples we have do not have an emergent time. They have emergent space but not time. It is very hard for me to imagine a formulation of physics without time as a primary concept because physics is typically thought of as predicting the future given the past. We have unitary time evolution. How could we have a theory of physics where we start with something in which time is never mentioned?
Yes. These views, once on the periphery, are moving closer to the center because of the puzzles and problems in physics. However, all my point really requires is that there be some model, whether on the periphery or not, on which time is emergent. There is - I have provided one example which seems, to me, unproblematic.This is the word of a Nobel prize world winner:
Earlier it was noted that the physicist Julian Barbour claims space is fundamental, but time is not. Other physicists say time is fundamental but space is not.
That quote is worth our attention, but it hasn’t done much but gesture in the direction of some difficulties, and it isn’t clear to me what concept of time this physicist is dealing with. Perhaps he’s an A-theorist? I could make perfect sense of his comments if he were. However, although physics is typically thought of as predicting the future given the past, I don’t think physics needs to be that way. After all, statements in physics are often counterfactual conditionals, and is it perfectly conceivable for there to be a physics of time travel (backwards in time). I also suspect that this physicist is making a mistake, typical for contemporary physicists, of confusing physics for metaphysics - physics does not deal directly with the furniture of the real world as such, but with its empirical structure. It may be impossible to have a theory of physics which explains the existence of the universe (in fact, I think that is impossible), but unless you’re a naturalist there’s no reason you should think that physics can be expected to provide that. The theory of everything, if it is interpreted to actually be a theory about everything, is naively ambitious.In 2004, after winning the Nobel Prize in physics, David Gross expressed that viewpoint:
“Everyone in string theory is convinced…that spacetime is doomed. But we don’t know what it’s replaced by. We have an enormous amount of evidence that space is doomed. We even have examples, mathematically well-defined examples, where space is an emergent concept…. But in my opinion the tough problem that has not yet been faced up to at all is, “How do we imagine a dynamical theory of physics in which time is emergent?” …All the examples we have do not have an emergent time. They have emergent space but not time. It is very hard for me to imagine a formulation of physics without time as a primary concept because physics is typically thought of as predicting the future given the past. We have unitary time evolution. How could we have a theory of physics where we start with something in which time is never mentioned?”
It is difficult for him to imagine a theory with time as emergent property. To me this is clearly impossible.
Since you AGAIN refuse to provide evidence of existence 18 billions years ago which YOU claimed to be in effect, we must conclude that would be false. Creation is a moot point as that would be closer to the 15 billion year mark. You can’t do 18 billion why do 15? No you don’t have to repeat because you are clearly avoiding answering the question that will determine whether existence was the default or not. Nice avoidance tactic though, let’s talk theory and ignore the evidence.I am arguing against the act of creation and then conclude that the existence is the default. Do you want me to repeated that again? There exist not any theory which allows you to starts the time since the theory itself need the variable time in order to be functional.This means that the act of creation is logically impossible.
Hi!Sorry for misprint.
What I claiming is that time is a variable that allows us to quantify motion or formulate a theory. Any dynamical theory uses time to predict future (including the possibility of emergence of a new phenomena such as emergence of space) given initial condition and time itself cannot be an emergent property of any system knowing the fact that it is the basic variable any dynamical theory.
I am arguing about the fact that the beginning/time cannot be initiated whether is one second ago or 1000 trillion years ago.Since you AGAIN refuse to provide evidence of existence 18 billions years ago which YOU claimed to be in effect, we must conclude that would be false. Creation is a moot point as that would be closer to the 15 billion year mark. You can’t do 18 billion why do 15? No you don’t have to repeat because you are clearly avoiding answering the question that will determine whether existence was the default or not. Nice avoidance tactic though, let’s talk theory and ignore the evidence.
I think I am done here. Do carry on.
No. I am simply saying that time cannot be initiated because time is a variable which allows to initiates other things. It is about the fact that you need time to initiate time which is contradictory.Hi!
…yet, your supposition is that since time did not exist (manmade system of measurement) there could not have been a Creator; it makes as much sense as stating that nothing existed prior to recorded history since man did not employ a mechanism to catalogue anything that existed prior to the first recording of history…
My argument is that while man had not the means to measure something (time, history, speed of light…) these events emerged in the cosmos in spite of man’s inability to recognize/understand and record them.
…or are you implying that till Newton there was no governance on gravity?
Maran atha!
Angel
Hi!No. I am simply saying that time cannot be initiated because time is a variable which allows to initiates other things. It is about the fact that you need time to initiate time which is contradictory.