Nothing to something

[STT]

You can’t have entropy without time and you can’t have time with entropy no matter which direction time is going.

You can have time without entropy. You can have entropy without time too. Time is a variable that allows change. Entropy is a variable which tells you how order a system is.

 

[Abrosz]

My impression was that it slows (asymptotically) to nearly a stop, but not precisely so. No?

Close, but no cigar. The time is contingent upon the fabric of STEM. Approaching the singularity makes time to become “slower”, and that is it. Inside the singularity the time comes to a standstill - at least according to our best physical model.

 

[nicholasG]

You can have time without entropy. You can have entropy without time too. Time is a variable that allows change. Entropy is a variable which tells you how order a system is.

Time is neither a constant, nor a variable . It’s a unit of measurement. Seconds, hours, minutes. They’re all time.
Time creates entropy.

If you can’t accept this, fine, nothing more to say.

 

[AlNg]

Non sequitur, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Not really. You are attempting to define time by the frequency of oscillations of a particular atom. That is obviously wrong, since you will get old at the same rate regardless of whether or not some event causes a change the frequency of oscillations of that particular atom

I’ll take a hard pass on that

Apparently you do not want to think about why defining time by oscillations of an atom is not a real definition of time. It many be a temporary measure of the rate a which time passes, but not a definition of what time actually is.

 

[quaestio45]

I am afraid that an atemporal being cannot resolve the problem since I am not talking about act but the result of act.

I feel rather silly for needing to ask this, but what exactly do you mean by that STT? I’m more than a little confused to say the least, for I thought that the question was how there could be creation of time without time? Were that to be the case, would not my explanation be sufficient (in that creation is eternal and that there was never a change in state, therefore there is no necessitation of time)? If not, could you elaborate so that I may have clarity?

 

[STT]

I feel rather silly for needing to ask this, but what exactly do you mean by that STT? I’m more than a little confused to say the least, for I thought that the question was how there could be creation of time without time? Were that to be the case, would not my explanation be sufficient (in that creation is eternal and that there was never a change in state, therefore there is no necessitation of time)? If not, could you elaborate so that I may have clarity?

I am talking about the process of creation more specifically creation of time rather than creator. I am arguing any process needs time since we are dealing with a change. I am arguing that the creation of time is necessary process yet itself is a process which needs time. This means that we are dealing with a regress. Regress is impossible. Therefore the process is an impossible process. Therefore, there is cannot be any being who is able to create out of nothing. Therefore, there is no God.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Saying ‘That is not correct’ is the crux of the problem here. You need to say: ‘On the assumption that that is not correct…’ and then go on to the points younwant to make. Neither of us knows if it is correct or not. Even Penrose, who formulated the concept, doesn’t know. But it’s possible that it’s correct and you need to accept that.

And each universe is termed an ‘aeon’ by Penrose so people don’t get confused by calling them ‘cycles’

I don’t understand you. You are talking about each universe yet denying existing time within them.

No I’m not. Time obviously exists within this universe. But it will eventually cease.

 

[STT]

No I’m not.

Great.

Time obviously exists within this universe.

And how about the previous universe? Was there a previous universe or not? Was there time in previous universe? Does the set of consecutive universes make a cycle?

But it will eventually cease.

So what?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No I’m not.

Great.

Time obviously exists within this universe.

And how about the previous universe? Was there a previous universe or not? Was there time in previous universe? Does the set of consecutive universes make a cycle?

But it will eventually cease.

So what?

I think we’re done.

 

[quaestio45]

Therefore, there is cannot be any being who is able to create out of nothing.

Believe it or not, I actually find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with you on this point.

Agreeing in part because it is true that there cannot be a process by which has time nonexistent and then has time existent without time pre-existing to allow for such to take place at all. In other words, without time you cannot move from A to be B, for it is obviously a change and change necessitates a dimension by which such change can operate (time). A simple conception of creation ex nihilo (where there is no temporal framework and then there is one) cannot be correct, so it seems.

However, I also disagree with you on what seems to me the ultimate conclusion which, correct me if I’m wrong, is that time should therefore not be seen as contingent on another (such as God). For simply on the basis that there cannot be a start to creation doesn’t mean that there cannot be a creation; it simply must be shifted to an eternal act rather than temporal. If the shifting is made, there seems to be no conflict with your argument, and, more over, the concept of creation becomes more in line with the nature of an eternal being of pure act then the one where creation can be pinned down temporarily.

 

[AlNg]

Time obviously exists within this universe. But it will eventually cease.

Some may argue that time will cease, but i don’t see the proof of that. It is just an opinion like saying: Kamala Harris will eventually be president of the USA. There are arguments indicating that but no solid proof that it will happen.

 

[STT]

Believe it or not, I actually find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with you on this point.

Let’s see my friend.

Agreeing in part because it is true that there cannot be a process by which has time nonexistent and then has time existent without time pre-existing to allow for such to take place at all. In other words, without time you cannot move from A to be B, for it is obviously a change and change necessitates a dimension by which such change can operate (time). A simple conception of creation ex nihilo (where there is no temporal framework and then there is one) cannot be correct, so it seems.

Great.

However, I also disagree with you on what seems to me the ultimate conclusion which, correct me if I’m wrong, is that time should therefore not be seen as contingent on another (such as God). For simply on the basis that there cannot be a start to creation doesn’t mean that there cannot be a creation; it simply must be shifted to an eternal act rather than temporal. If the shifting is made, there seems to be no conflict with your argument, and, more over, the concept of creation becomes more in line with the nature of an eternal being of pure act then the one where creation can be pinned down temporarily.

I showed that the process is impossible. This means that there is no act which can make this process possible. Therefore, there cannot be any being who is able to create out of nothing, whether the being is temporal or atemporal.

 

[quaestio45]

I showed that the process is impossible. This means that there is no act which can make this process possible. Therefore, there cannot be any being who is able to create out of nothing, whether the being is temporal or atemporal.

I think that theres perhaps a chance you might be misinterpreting what I’m saying. For what I’m not saying is that the process of A to B becomes possible because a timless being has the power to make that happen outside of the dimension of change (time). Instead, what I’m sayinv is that B always was because the timeless being always was. They are both eternal, neither consisting of a beginning nor end. If that be so, the process malfunction you showed does not apply here, for there isn’t a process at all, really.

 

[STT]

I think that theres perhaps a chance you might be misinterpreting what I’m saying. For what I’m not saying is that the process of A to B becomes possible because a timless being has the power to make that happen outside of the dimension of change (time). Instead, what I’m sayinv is that B always was because the timeless being always was. They are both eternal, neither consisting of a beginning nor end. If that be so, the process malfunction you showed does not apply here, for there isn’t a process at all, really.

Well, the temporal universe cannot extend to the infinite past. Moreover, what is the use of God if there is no creation ex niliho, I mean if the universe is eternal.

 

[quaestio45]

Well, the temporal universe cannot extend to the infinite past.

If by that, you mean that within the tempral framework, time cannot and does not extend infinitely into the past then I completely agree. That’s why it seems to me more reasonable to hold that the temporal framework is eternal whilst the time within it is finite (or at the very minimum, seems to have a point where it doesn’t exist). I can understand if that can cause confusion, I myself don’t fully know how to explain it properly, but what I’m trying to say, fundamentally, is that the framework of time is eternal whilst the time within it is something which appears to begin.

Moreover, what is the use of God if there is no creation ex niliho, I mean if the universe is eternal.

Well to me, I find that God is still necessary if the temporal framework is obviously contingent. Sure, it may be eternal, but that doesn’t equate to it being eternal through its own power. And If someone proves on that forum I created that a noncontingent being may have free choice, then I feel it doubley establishes that time cannot exist if God simply eternally willed for it to not exist.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Time obviously exists within this universe. But it will eventually cease.

Some may argue that time will cease, but i don’t see the proof of that. It is just an opinion like saying: Kamala Harris will eventually be president of the USA. There are arguments indicating that but no solid proof that it will happen.

I have the book that Penrose wrote on the subject. There are dozens of pages of maths that are waaay beyond my pay grade that shows that it is not simply a matter of opinion.

 

[STT]

Great. So I think we agree that creation ex niliho is false.

If by that, you mean that within the tempral framework, time cannot and does not extend infinitely into the past then I completely agree. That’s why it seems to me more reasonable to hold that the temporal framework is eternal whilst the time within it is finite (or at the very minimum, seems to have a point where it doesn’t exist). I can understand if that can cause confusion, I myself don’t fully know how to explain it properly, but what I’m trying to say, fundamentally, is that the framework of time is eternal whilst the time within it is something which appears to begin.

Then I have to ask you what do you mean with eternal? Do you mean that time was always existed in finite past?

Well to me, I find that God is still necessary if the temporal framework is obviously contingent.

Do you have any proof for time being contingent?

Sure, it may be eternal, but that doesn’t equate to it being eternal through its own power.

How do you know? Things could sustain each other too. Think of two times which both change and sustain each other.

And If someone proves on that forum I created that a noncontingent being may have free choice, then I feel it doubley establishes that time cannot exist if God simply eternally willed for it to not exist.

I can show that free being cannot be created or destroyed therefore they are not contingent.

 

[quaestio45]

Great. So I think we agree that creation ex niliho is false.

Ehhh… kind of. I now agree that creation couldn’t be of the process you described (no creation to creation) because it concludes very obviously in absurdity. However, creation ex nihilo in the Thomistic sense (that God created/creates eternally without the need of any pre-existing material) I do very much now believe in.

Then I have to ask you what do you mean with eternal? Do you mean that time was always existed in finite past?

I’m going to go off of the assumption that you meant eternal and not external, otherwise I wouldn’t understand what you meant by the question. In anycase, what I mean by eternal is that there always was the temporal framework (i.e the temporal framework never came into existence, it always was in existence). However, the time within the framework is not infinte (although it could have been infinte), but instead finite insofar as there was a start to it (a point by which time is not in existence). I know thats very difficult to understand, and seems contradictory, but… lets see if this imagary works… imagine the universe as something of a large box. The furthest left side would be the “start” of time, and perhaps the furthest right would be the “end” of time (if there is an end, of course). Now, although time seems to “start”, it doesn’t actually start if the box is something that never begins to exist itself, and therefore always was. In that sense, there is the framework which is eternal, and the contents within the framework which are limited. Does that make a lick of sense?

Do you have any proof for time being contingent?

I suppose that depends on what you take as proof. For me, it is sufficiently proven that time cannot be noncontingent because contemporary science shows that it distorts upon objects of mass, therefore signifying that theres change in it. Furthermore, time, if finite, on that basis cannot be noncontingent. Finally, time does not seem able to produce anything, and if that be so, we must appeal to something else for an explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing.

How do you know? Things could sustain each other too. Think of two times which both change and sustain each other.

Because if chronos (time) is not a noncontingent being, that means its existence needs some external explanation, which I believe must rest on some ultimate source of existence to which would actually be noncontingent. Because of such, God cannot be dependent on chronos, but chronos would be dependent on God.

 

[STT]

Ehhh… kind of. I now agree that creation couldn’t be of the process you described (no creation to creation) because it concludes very obviously in absurdity. However, creation ex nihilo in the Thomistic sense (that God created/creates eternally without the need of any pre-existing material) I do very much now believe in.

Great. So we are making progress.

I’m going to go off of the assumption that you meant eternal and not external , otherwise I wouldn’t understand what you meant by the question. In anycase, what I mean by eternal is that there always was the temporal framework (i.e the temporal framework never came into existence, it always was in existence)…Now, although time seems to “start”, it doesn’t actually start if the box is something that never begins to exist itself, and therefore always was. In that sense, there is the framework which is eternal, and the contents within the framework which are limited. Does that make a lick of sense?

So by eternal you mean that time has existed in finite past. God hold it eternally in another word sustains it since the beginning of time.

I suppose that depends on what you take as proof. For me, it is sufficiently proven that time cannot be noncontingent because contemporary science shows that it distorts upon objects of mass, therefore signifying that theres change in it.

Great. I agree that time changes temporally too. Why something which changes needs a sustainer that should be noncontingent? Why sustainer cannot be another contingent thing while another contingent thing is also sustained by the former contingent thing.

Furthermore, time, if finite, on that basis cannot be noncontingent.

Why the infinite thing is noncontingent? Do you mind to elaborate?

Finally, time does not seem able to produce anything, and if that be so, we must appeal to something else for an explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing.

Time allows changes to happen. I agree that it doesn’t produce anything though but if you have two times each time can allow passage another one.

Because if chronos (time) is not a noncontingent being, that means its existence needs some external explanation, which I believe must rest on some ultimate source of existence to which would actually be noncontingent. Because of such, God cannot be dependent on chronos, but chronos would be dependent on God.

As I mentioned before two contingent being can sustain each other without any need for a Divine. Time1 allows time2 to change and vice versa.

I would like to add that the picture of God sustaining time leads to a regress too since time changes and time is needed for any change.

 

[lelinator]

As I mentioned before two contingent being can sustain each other without any need for a Divine.

But even if this is true, neither of these contingent beings can be responsible for giving rise to the other. Since each being is dependent upon the other for its existence, neither of them can exist prior to the other. Thus neither of them can give rise to the other. Therefore, it would seem that there must be a third being who’s existence isn’t contingent upon the other two, yet the other two are contingent upon it.