Nothing to something

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Time is a measure of the rate of change.

So time is only a measure? IOW, it is only a unit used to express a rate? So time itself is not something real such as space?

It’s nonsensical to say that you need time for motion to occur.

Is it also nonsensical to say that you need space for motion to occur? Can motion occur without space or is space necessary for it to move around ? Can a planet move around the sun without space?

Yes, time doesn’t exist independently. And if something moves then it has to exist and it has to exist (and move) within something.

If nothing exists then there is no time, no distance, no size…

 

[AlNg]

Yes, time doesn’t exist independently.

If time is simply a measure, then there is no logical reason which would prevent it from being a measure which could extend beyond any point -M into the past.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Yes, time doesn’t exist independently.

If time is simply a measure, then there is no logical reason which would prevent it from being a measure which could extend beyond any point -M into the past.

As long as there was continuity of movement, yes.

 

[AlNg]

Time is a measure of the rate of change

When someone says time passes, or time passes by what is it that is passing? Measurements generally don’t pass by anything.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Time is a measure of the rate of change

When someone says time passes, or time passes by what is it that is passing? Measurements generally don’t pass by anything.

Things are moving. They are passing from one thing to another. They are changing. Time measures that rate of change.

 

[Abrosz]

There is STEM" - Space - time - energy - matter. There is no Newtonian absolute space or absolute time. There is the 4 dimensional space-time continuum, where “x, y and z” are the spatial coordinates and “t” is the temporal coordinate of an event. Here the x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (c*t)^2 is an invariant. That is all that matters. The math is crystal clear. The rest is all icing on the cake.

 

[AlNg]

Time measures that rate of change.

Time is more than a measurement. When you measure a room, you can measure at your leisure and there is nothing to force you to do so. The passing of time is inexorable. And when someone asks what is the time? Not many people will say that the measurement of the rate of change is now 2: 15 PM.

The rest is all icing on the cake.

So time is icing on a cake? Would that be a chocolate cake or a vanilla cake?

The math is crystal clear.

The math is clear, but is the math the same as the time and does the math tell us what time is? Does the fact that it is crystal clear that the sun is 94 million miles from the earth tell us what the sun is?

 

[Abrosz]

The math is clear, but is the math the same as the time and does the math tell us what time is?

It does tell you. It is the fourth coordinate in the equation. Of course we just love to visualize “things”.

It makes internalization easier. In the times when professor Niels Bohr formulated his atom-model, the atom “looked like” a miniature solar system, with the nucleus resembling the Sun, and the electrons resembling the planets. Today this model is obsolete. The question of “but what does the atom REALLY look like” is exactly as nonsensical as asking “but what IS on the reverse side of the Mobius strip”.

Not everything “looks like” a macro object. If it does, all the better. But as long we have the math to calculate AND predict the result, all is fine. Can you visualize a tesseract? (It is a four-dimensional cube, a mathematical abstraction)

 

[Gorgias]

I am not arguing against act of creation in here.

You’re just misconstruing what ex nihilo creation means, that’s all!

I guess it depends on the subject. Not so much for math, but possible to some extent for physics, or more exactly physical models.

A physics theorem isn’t true because many physicists accept it; rather, many physicists accept it because it has the appearance of truth to them!

As far as torture is concerned, yes the truth is a matter of public consensus.

Wrong thread, no?

As far as torture is concerned, yes the truth is a matter of public consensus. Today the Catholic Church teaches that torture is intrinsically evil. That is the truth today.

I think you’re conflating two distinct notions: "it is true that the Church teaches X " and “X itself is true”. (And neither are a matter of public consensus!)

Freddy:

Time measures that rate of change.

Time is more than a measurement.

I think you’re misconstruing the statement. You’ve read “time is a measure” and you responded “time isn’t a measurement!” Umm… he didn’t say it’s a measurement. If I held up a yardstick and I said “a yardstick measures length”, would you object, “no! a yardstick isn’t a measurement!” (Of course not; and if you did, I’d just look at you funny.*

@Freddy presented the classical, philosophical definition of time: it’s a measure of change. How are measures of time defined, if you please? By the rate of oscillation in a cesium atom, no? So… "measure of rate of change*.

 

[quaestio45]

I may very well be a fool to enter myself into this conversation of time, but my curiosity and interest havd been piqued. For I always found myself on (if I’m not wrong) AINgs side of the fence, thinking that time is not merely the measurement of the rate of change, but rather the dimension by which change occurs.

For, it seems to me that to deny time as a dimension (measurable nonetheless, but not indeed a measurement itself) is almost like to deny space is a dimension (for yes, both are measurable, yet both seem to be real and come first before the measurement). Furthermore, wouldn’t there be a strange issue if we were to simply call time a measure of change instead of the dimension which change occurs? For example, what exactly would being out of time mean? To be outside of the measurable rate of change? I’m not entirely sure, but I always viewed it as the place where change cannot occur. In anycase, I’m not highly convinced by Freddy’s position, which, if I may be wrong, hopefully I may learn to be right

 

[AlNg]

It does tell you. It is the fourth coordinate in the equation.

How does that explain why time moves inexorably forward, whereas it is not true of the other coordinates?

 

[Abrosz]

How does that explain why time moves inexorably forward, whereas it is not true of the other coordinates?

It does not. We may develop a better, more detailed theory, or we may not. The equations which are borne out by the experiments would stay valid if time would flow backwards.

 

[AlNg]

@Freddy presented the classical, philosophical definition of time: it’s a measure of change. How are measures of time defined, if you please? By the rate of oscillation in a cesium atom , no? So… "measure of rate of change*.

The definition given is incomplete. The definition does not distinguish between measures that move inexorably forward and those that do not. there is no explanation of why time moves inexorably forward. Further, if the definition depends on the cesium atom, what happens if there are no cesium atoms around.

It does not. We may develop a better, more detailed theory, or we may not.

The definition of time as the fourth coordinate of a mathematical formula is not a complete definition.

 

[Abrosz]

The definition of time as the fourth coordinate of a mathematical formula is not a complete definition.

It is the best for the time being. The old, Newtonian equations worked just fine, and are still fine at lower speed.

 

[AlNg]

It is the best for the time being.

It doesn’t tell us the nature of what time is, or where time comes from or other things like how is it possible for two theories to be equivalent even though they are in two different space-time backgrounds, like AdS/CFT or T-duality.

The equations which are borne out by the experiments would stay valid if time would flow backwards.

I don’t see too many waterfalls with water running up instead of down. It is difficult to believe that Niagra Falls could have its water flowing upwards in the opposite direction.
i don’t see how time could flow backwards and have the cause follow after the effect has occurred. So First you put the pan of water on a cold stove. then it boils. Then after that, you turn the gas on underneath the pan, after the boiling? Or first you attend a university and receive a degree in chemical engineering, then a year later you are born.
There is something missing if the equations stay valid if time flows backwards. The equations you have given are woefully inadequate to explain what time is.

 

[Abrosz]

It doesn’t tell us the nature of what time is, or where time comes from…

It does not. That is why the fundamental principles are simply brute facts. To explain something means to reduce it to something even more fundamental. But how can one expect to reduce the basics? There are syntactically valid arrangements of words, which are meaningless.

One example is : “But what is reality… REALLY?” It is enough if we have some equations, which allow us to make predictions, which are borne out by the experiments. The rest is nice, when possible, but not necessary.

 

[Gorgias]

The definition given is incomplete.

The exercise is left to the reader.

Further, if the definition depends on the cesium atom, what happens if there are no cesium atoms around.

It’s a standard. Other (equivalent) standards are possible. C’mon, brother…

 

[STT]

There is only one cycle.

If it is so then the current cycle is the first cycle.

There cannot have been a first.

That is not correct.

The universe is part of the cycle not a cycle in itself. There is no first. There is no ‘before’ as time begins again just like it did at the big bang. It’s nonsensical to ask what was ‘before’ the big bang.

You use again which mean that there are cycles.

 

[STT]

Time is a measure of the rate of change.

That is Aristotelian definition. We know that time-space is a substance which curves.

For change to occur you need motion.

Seriously? This is like saying that for change to occur you need change since change and motion are the same things.

There is no motion and therefore no time.

And even this is not correct.

It’s nonsensical to say that you need time for motion to occur. That’s like saying speed is needed for movement or weight is necessary for mass. Speed and weight are measurements as is time.

Time is needed for motion. Argument: Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot lay at the same point therefore they are at different points belonging to a variable. Moreover, there should be a duration for reaching from the first point to the second point otherwise the change never takes place. Therefore a variable needed for the motion to occur. We call this variable time.

 

[STT]

Could you perhaps elaborate on what is missing from the formulation which keeps classical understanding of change from being applicable to nonbeing? Or, if it may not be too much, what I overlook or neglect which invalidates my thinking?

Nothing is not something and has no property like mass, charge, etc. According to first law of Newton things which have mass need a force in order to move. Nothing, has not mass.

Permitting that we continue using the model of Aristotelian change, and continuing on the assumption that you agree “nothing can be actualized into something with no efficient cause” is a fair representation of your position, I believe that it is fair to say that the statement is equivalent to the statement “nothing can be actualized into something with the efficient cause being nonbeing” on the basis of one-for-one analogy. For, it seems to me that to deny my equalization of the two higher statements would be same as to deny the equalization of the statements “There is no dragon in reality” and “the dragon is nonexistence in reality” and “there are zero dragons in reality”, would you not agree?

No. I am afraid that I cannot agree.

I would be quite glad to hear the argument (inspite of my lacking of great analytical skill ). It would perhaps be an enlightening endevour, and as such, it would foolish of me to refuse to hear you out. In any case, yes, I would like to hear your argument.

Ok, here is the argument: Act of creation is about a change. Any change requires time. Time is an element of creation. Therefore, time is needed in order to create time. This is regress. Regress is impossible. Therefore, the act of creation is impossible.