Nothing to something

[AlNg]

I have the book that Penrose wrote on the subject

Can you let me know which book it is and which pages? Perhaps you are referring to his book: The Cycles of Time. There are a few equations in the appendices of that book, but nothing that mathematically arcane in the book itself. Where does he say that time will cease? Do you have the pages? I have a few of his books already and have been going through the book: The Road to Reality. Actually, this book is really a sidewalk to reality, but still, it is a great book. He has an ability to break down complex concepts into readily understandable terms. i like his writing style a lot.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I have the book that Penrose wrote on the subject

Can you let me know which book it is and which pages? Perhaps you are referring to his book: The Cycles of Time. There are a few equations in the appendices of that book, but nothing that mathematically arcane in the book itself. Where does he say that time will cease? Do you have the pages? I have a few of his books already and have been going through the book: The Road to Reality. Actually, this book is really a sidewalk to reality, but still, it is a great book. He has an ability to break down complex concepts into readily understandable terms. i like his writing style a lot.

‘…so if eventually there is little around which has any rest-mass, the capacity for making measurements of the passage of time would be lost (as is the capacity for making distance measurements, since distances also depend on time measurements.’ Location 2293 if you have the Kindle. Chapter 3.1.

 

[AlNg]

Yes. p. 146 of Cycles of Time. But doesn’t he say a few sentences down that even under that scenario, it is possible that there could be smooth extensions of conformal space time to the other side of the hypersurface?

 

[Freddy]

Yes. p. 146 of Cycles of Time. But doesn’t he say a few sentences down that even under that scenario, it is possible that there could be smooth extensions of conformal space time to the other side of the hypersurface?

That’s above my pay grade.

 

[Gorgias]

No. A is a state of a system

If A “precedes” creation, then it’s not part of the system.

Duration for going from A to B is necessary otherwise change does not take place.

Again: inside a temporal system? Sure. Outside of it, in an atemporal context? Not so much.

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.

There we go – your cigar just went out: your assertion is merely “according to our best [present] model”.

You are attempting to define time by the frequency of oscillations of a particular atom.

No – that’s a standard for defining how to measure time. After all, time is “the measure of change”.

Apparently you do not want to think about why defining time by oscillations of an atom is not a real definition of time.

No – I just don’t want to go down an irrelevant tangent.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Nope. That’s not what follows from the argument.

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,

Yep, that’s the way I see it, too: when viewed ‘externally’ (merely as a ‘system’ or ‘container’, rather than with respect to its contents), the universe is eternal. It is created in eternity by God. (Now, God precedes the universe – not temporally, mind you, but as an cause to an effect – and creates it eternally.)

On the other hand, when looking inside the universe, you encounter its dynamics: there is physical extension (in three dimensions) and temporal dimension. From the interior of the universe, there was a temporal beginning (i.e., a time t0).

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

Yes and no. The universe, as such, exists in eternity. Internal to the universe, time has existed since the beginning of the temporal framework (as simple as that sounds). Externally to the universe, though? That’s atemporal.

Do you have any proof for time being contingent?

God created the universe; therefore, it is contingent on God. ‘Time’ is part of the universe; therefore, it too is contingent.

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

No… you can assert it without proof. You’ve been playing that tune for a while.

Why the infinite thing is noncontingent?

He said “noncontingent if finite”, not infinite.

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

Talk about ‘regress’!

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.

No, it doesn’t! God created the universe (including time). God sustains the universe (including time). No regress.

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.

 

[quaestio45]

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

Because if noncontingency can be best defined as “that which has their existence wholly and completely explicable through their essence”, then it therefore must be of such a nature to which it cannot be influenced by any externalities. To be as such, however, would require that you be immutably constant, and therefore not susceptible to any change. Change, however, is intrinsic to that which holds potentiality. So to be devoid of the elements change must mean to be devoid of potentiality. But if potentiality is infinite, the only way to be completely devoid of it would be with infinte actuality. As such, you must be infinite to be noncontingent.

Now I understand that to have the elements of change presupposes a dimension by which change occurs (time), and if time itself were changing, one may rightly ask the question “how could the dimension of change itself change without another dimension of change to explain such phenomenon” but I don’t think theres any logical necessity for this. For, I don’t see why change cannot be of a nature similar to water, where what occurs within it also is applicable to the substance itself (for example, wetness).

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.

I’m not sure how that solves the problem of production STT. For if one time by itself can’t produce anything, why would multiplying it bring about any difference?

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.

Hmmm… doesn’t seem similar to circular reasoning? Where one thing is made possible through another thing, but that depends its existence on the previous thing? It doesn’t seem to me that this can be the case unless one is already in existence, but if that be the case, why appeal to a second time at all to explain the furst time?

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.

I don’t see it devolving into a regress were God to be eternal and thus ultimately unchanging, along with any act of creation. And if there is no change, it therefore means that its noncontriductory with the point you made about processes. Now if the point you’re making is that “sustaning” ultimately means that it could not be sustained and thus there could be change, I’d simply say no. Not if the sustaining is eternal.

 

[Abrosz]

There we go – your cigar just went out: your assertion is merely “according to our best [present] model”.

Yes, and that is not just honest, but as it should be.

Any proposition outside an axiomatic, deductive system must be considered provisional, subject to modification if and when the need arises. But that does not mean that everything is subject to unconditional skepticism. Our physical models are extremely robust, and reliable, and have been verified innumerable times. That does not raise them to the level of axiomatic certainty, but they are much more reliable than “beyond any reasonable doubt”.

Theoretically it is possible that our current, provisional model of reality will need to be updated, revised or even discarded, but the probability of this event is much lower than winning the lottery jackpot a bunch of million times in successive drawings.

So we can say with utmost (though not quite 100%) certainty, that Einstein’s gravitational model is precise “enough” to say that within a singularity time goes to standstill. That is the only “atemporal” reality. Of course I will ask if you have a mathematical / physical model of your suggested “atemporal” reality, which nevertheless makes the inhabitants of that reality to interact with the known temporal reality. If you have it, share it with us.

 

[Gorgias]

Our physical models are extremely robust, and reliable, and have been verified innumerable times.

Time out: this ‘verification’ of “stopped time inside black holes” is merely a mathematical one, right? So, we’ve only verified that our models are internally consistent and not actually representative of reality, right? Big difference there…

Theoretically it is possible that our current, provisional model of reality will need to be updated, revised or even discarded, but the probability of this event is much lower than winning the lottery jackpot a bunch of million times in successive drawings.

So much for “provisional and subject to modification”!

So we can say with utmost (though not quite 100%) certainty, that Einstein’s gravitational model is precise “enough” to say that within a singularity time goes to standstill. That is the only “atemporal” reality.

I would like make a distinction: the two dynamics are not identical. “Time exists in this framework but has stopped” is distinct from “time does not exist in this framework”. It seems analogous to the difference between { } and { ti-3, ti-2, ti-1, ti, ti, ti, ti…}. One is null, and the other has elements (but is in a state of stasis of sorts).

Of course I will ask if you have a mathematical / physical model of your suggested “atemporal” reality, which nevertheless makes the inhabitants of that reality to interact with the known temporal reality.

The “inhabitants” of that reality are spiritual, not physical, and therefore, asking for a physical model of that reality is a request in bad faith.

 

[Abrosz]

The “inhabitants” of that reality are spiritual, not physical, and therefore, asking for a physical model of that reality is a request in bad faith.

Show me a “spiritual inhabitant”.

 

[Abrosz]

Time out: this ‘verification’ of “stopped time inside black holes” is merely a mathematical one, right? So, we’ve only verified that our models are internally consistent and not actually representative of reality , right? Big difference there…

This brings up the question: “but what is reality - really?” How does it differ from the empirical observation and the mathematical models, which allow us to make predictions, and verify the results - empirically, of course!

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

The “inhabitants” of that reality are spiritual, not physical, and therefore, asking for a physical model of that reality is a request in bad faith.

Show me a “spiritual inhabitant”.

Again: “bad faith”. You’re asking me to “show you”? In other words, an empirical, physical demonstration of a non-physical being? You just don’t get tired of these illogical demands, eh?

This brings up the question: “but what is reality - really?” How does it differ from the empirical observation and the mathematical models, which allow us to make predictions, and verify the results - empirically, of course!

Inasmuch as you’re talking about physical reality ? Sure… you can take empirical measurements of physical reality. That’s trivial. It’s when you demand empirical measurements of non-physical entities that it’s clear that either you don’t understand the illogic of your request (or that you don’t care that it’s illogical)…

 

[STT]

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.

Not, if two contingent entities have existed since the beginning of times. We (I and @quaestio45) already agreed that the creation out of nothing is logically impossible. Please look at our discussion. I would be happy to see your criticisms.

 

[STT]

If A “precedes” creation, then it’s not part of the system.

A and B could be whatever. I already gave you the instruction for my former argument.

Again: inside a temporal system? Sure. Outside of it, in an atemporal context? Not so much.

You don’t have change if you are dealing with a atemporal thing. I already analyze change for you.

 

[STT]

Nope. That’s not what follows from the argument.

Please look through my discussion with @quaestio45 and bring your criticisms.

On the other hand, when looking inside the universe, you encounter its dynamics: there is physical extension (in three dimensions) and temporal dimension. From the interior of the universe, there was a temporal beginning (i.e., a time t0).

I already discuss that with you and @quaestio45. He agrees and you don’t. Perhaps he can help you.

Yes and no. The universe, as such, exists in eternity. Internal to the universe, time has existed since the beginning of the temporal framework (as simple as that sounds). Externally to the universe, though? That’s atemporal.

You cannot have any change in eternity. The universe doesn’t exist in eternity. Therefore, the only valid framework to discuss the universe is the temporal framework.

God created the universe; therefore, it is contingent on God. ‘Time’ is part of the universe; therefore, it too is contingent.

Yes, if you didn’t need time for the creation of time.

No… you can assert it without proof. You’ve been playing that tune for a while.

You don’t even know my argument. How could you possibly disagree!?

Talk about ‘regress’!

What?

No, it doesn’t! God created the universe (including time). God sustains the universe (including time). No regress.

That is just an assertion.

 

[AlNg]

I just don’t want to go down an irrelevant tangent.

So a faulty definition of time is irrelevant to the discussion?

 

[Abrosz]

You’re asking me to “show you”?

When I said: "Show me, that means: “give me evidence”. "If you can use some non-physical method, go for it.

Inasmuch as you’re talking about physical reality ?

The non-physical “reality” is just a proposition. What kind of evidence can you present for its actual existence?

 

[STT]

Because if noncontingency can be best defined as “that which has their existence wholly and completely explicable through their essence”, then it therefore must be of such a nature to which it cannot be influenced by any externalities. To be as such, however, would require that you be immutably constant, and therefore not susceptible to any change. Change, however, is intrinsic to that which holds potentiality. So to be devoid of the elements change must mean to be devoid of potentiality. But if potentiality is infinite, the only way to be completely devoid of it would be with infinte actuality. As such, you must be infinite to be noncontingent.

Now I understand that to have the elements of change presupposes a dimension by which change occurs (time), and if time itself were changing, one may rightly ask the question “how could the dimension of change itself change without another dimension of change to explain such phenomenon” but I don’t think theres any logical necessity for this. For, I don’t see why change cannot be of a nature similar to water, where what occurs within it also is applicable to the substance itself (for example, wetness).

I am afraid that this is not an argument for what I have asked.

I’m not sure how that solves the problem of production STT. For if one time by itself can’t produce anything, why would multiplying it bring about any difference?

Could we agree that time is needed for passage of time since time itself is subject to change.

Hmmm… doesn’t seem similar to circular reasoning? Where one thing is made possible through another thing, but that depends its existence on the previous thing? It doesn’t seem to me that this can be the case unless one is already in existence, but if that be the case, why appeal to a second time at all to explain the furst time?

Time is continuous. Each time sustains another one simultaneously.

I don’t see it devolving into a regress were God to be eternal and thus ultimately unchanging, along with any act of creation. And if there is no change, it therefore means that its noncontriductory with the point you made about processes. Now if the point you’re making is that “sustaning” ultimately means that it could not be sustained and thus there could be change, I’d simply say no. Not if the sustaining is eternal.

Could we agree that time changes? Could we agree that time is needed for any change. If the answers to both questions are yes then it follows that you need time for passage of time. This is an obvious regress which is different from previous regress, creation of time.

 

[Gorgias]

A and B could be whatever. I already gave you the instruction for my former argument.

And I refuted it.

I already discuss that with you and @quaestio45. He agrees and you don’t. Perhaps he can help you.

Hmm… don’t think so. He agrees if you mean something that he recognizes you do not. So… not so much.

The universe doesn’t exist in eternity.

Wrong. The universe – internally and with respect to itself – has a temporal framework. However, if God created it, then it must exist in His framework. However, it’s a closed system, and functions within that context.

You don’t even know my argument. How could you possibly disagree!?

I’ve heard you assert it over and again, friend.

That is just an assertion.

How might you wish me to substantiate it?

So a faulty definition of time is irrelevant to the discussion?

No. But an irrelevant digression is.

When I said: "Show me, that means: “give me evidence”. "If you can use some non-physical method, go for it.

Great! What kind of “non-physical evidence” are you willing to accept!

What kind of evidence can you present for its actual existence?

What kind of evidence are you demanding? Physical evidence? We can keep playing this game all day, but I’m not going to allow you to make nonsensical demands and pretend that your argument succeeds when those illogical demands are not met.

Time is continuous. Each time sustains another one simultaneously.

No, it’s not. Time is discrete. Humans might perceive of it as continuous, but that’s not the case.

 

[STT]

And I refuted it.

Could you please tell me what my argument look likes when A is nothing and B is the creation? Of course we are not talking about a system.

Hmm… don’t think so. He agrees if you mean something that he recognizes you do not . So… not so much.

Ask him please.

Wrong. The universe – internally and with respect to itself – has a temporal framework. However, if God created it, then it must exist in His framework. However, it’s a closed system, and functions within that context.

What is eternity?

I’ve heard you assert it over and again, friend.

So, you don’t know what I am talking about yet disagree with it.

How might you wish me to substantiate it?

Prove how God can sustain and create the universe without any need for time.