Objective time cannot exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GEddie said:
There could be no ‘beginning’ without before and after, hence time.
Click to expand...
The problem lies at the very beginning point. The beginning is a point at which a change happen at it yet time is ill-defined at this point since time start right after this point yet we need the very concept of time at this point.
 
tee_eff_em said:
And here lies your nonsense. :rolleyes:

By using the word *before you are begging the question. Stop inserting words that require the passage of time when you speak about the beginning of Time.

Here, I’ll do it again. Note the complete absence of Timey-Wimey Words:
A first change happens. Look! Time!
(* By which I mean *petitio principii * :cool: )

“Bah”
tee
Click to expand...
I am holding my position. There is an before and after for any change including the first change hence there is a difficulty to define beginning of time. We obviously know that something has changed at the beginning point otherwise we couldn’t be here.
 
unstoppable_II said:
That’s if you define time as change.
Click to expand...
I didn’t define time as change. Time however can be define as something which measure how quick changes happen.
unstoppable_II said:
What if you define time as two events?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that this definition is correct. You can however define time as a duration between two events.
unstoppable_II said:
Seems that the two events would be first there is no time then there is time.
Click to expand...
Please read previous comment.
 
Bahman said:
I am holding my position.
Click to expand...
If you insist on holding an absurd position, that is your business.

:twocents: But you’ve no (legitimate) business trying to persuade others to hold the same. Nor can you legitimately hope to maintain truth while doing so. :twocents:

“Bah”
tee
 
tee_eff_em said:
If you insist on holding an absurd position, that is your business.

:twocents: But you’ve no (legitimate) business trying to persuade others to hold the same. :twocents:

“Bah”
tee
Click to expand...
Does any change require an after and before?
 
Bahman said:
God cannot do something logically impossible. Or do you believe otherwise?
Click to expand...
Is logic a tool and not a god? All logical discussions depend on the premise two parties agree on.

If one party does not believe that God exists there is no point in arguing whether or not God can or can not defy logic.

So starting with the premise that God does exists:

Parties can debate on whether or not God is omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, He can do anything so we can argue that, yes, God can defy logic. Or we might say that God has a better grasp of logic that humans.

If parties start with the premise God is not omnipotent and logic is more powerful
then we can argue that, no, God can not defy logic therefore God is not omnipotent.

Before parties can agree on whether or not logic exists
They must agree that there is a reason for the existence of logic.
 
Bahman said:
To make two arguments against objective time we consider two cases that objective time could exist and then show that both cases are paradoxical hence objective time could not exist. Time is either eternal or it has a beginning. Eternal time is problematic since it requires infinite waiting to reach now hence it is impossible. In simple word, you cannot reach now from infinite past by finite amount of waiting. Objective time in another hand is something that is attached to changes hence time cannot have a beginning because beginning of time is the point in which we have a change.
Click to expand...
You wrote, “hence time cannot have a beginning”

This is merely your opinion and I disagree with it since I believe that time had a beginning, just as I believe that “space” had a beginning.

Time may or may not have an ending, I do not know.

If you want me to “prove” that time has a beginning, no problem, I can’t do it?

By the way, what is “objective time”?

Would you consider back in the past when you first wrote this post of yours to be objective time, subjective time, neither or no time at all?

Would that past, when you first made your posting, be a part of the time that you claim does not exist or would it be part of no-time that does or doesn’t exist?

Ever thought that all of these things that you think up of as not existing may very well exist and it is you that do not exist?

I happen to believe that you exist, by the way, are you a politician or a philosopher or both or neither?
 
Bahman, I’ve gone through many of your threads discussing time and I can’t make heads or tails of what you’re trying to prove. In this thread you’ve said Objective Time can’t exist, by which I assume you believe that Subjective Time is all there is. I’m also inferring from previous threads that by subjective time you mean our own conscious awareness of time. So essentially you’re saying that time can’t exist unless our conscious minds are aware of the changes taking place around us. Am I getting this right?
 
Bahman said:
To make two arguments against objective time we consider two cases that objective time could exist and then show that both cases are paradoxical hence objective time could not exist. Time is either eternal or it has a beginning. Eternal time is problematic since it requires infinite waiting to reach now hence it is impossible. In simple word, you cannot reach now from infinite past by finite amount of waiting. Objective time in another hand is something that is attached to changes hence time cannot have a beginning because beginning of time is the point in which we have a change.
Click to expand...
Time is directional but we can’t direct it since we can’t go back in time we can only go forward. So if time is directional I think the point you are trying to make just means >> You’re lost.
 
Bahman: Your apparent obsession with the subjects of time and it’s objectivity, eternity, and fatalism is unsettling. If I remember correctly from other threads you’ve started, this Is your 3rd or 4th post on time and it’s objectivity alone, even after other posters immediately disproved your statements. it seems you are just trying to make contradictory and irrational statements in order to start an argument with those who dissent with your ideas. I suggest you use your objective time more wisely, my friend.
 
HelenRose said:
Is logic a tool and not a god? All logical discussions depend on the premise two parties agree on.
Click to expand...
So let me know which premisses you disagree with the following argument:
  1. Objective time has a beginning
  2. Beginning is a change
  3. Any change has a before and an after
  4. From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that there was a change in the beginning of objective time
  5. Objective time is attached to any change
  6. From (4) and (5) we can deduce we need a new objective time to define the beginning of former
  7. This is infinite regress hence impossible hence (1) is wrong
HelenRose said:
If one party does not believe that God exists there is no point in arguing whether or not God can or can not defy logic.

So starting with the premise that God does exists:

Parties can debate on whether or not God is omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, He can do anything so we can argue that, yes, God can defy logic. Or we might say that God has a better grasp of logic that humans.

If parties start with the premise God is not omnipotent and logic is more powerful
then we can argue that, no, God can not defy logic therefore God is not omnipotent.

Before parties can agree on whether or not logic exists
They must agree that there is a reason for the existence of logic.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that I cannot comment on the rest of your objection since any of them requires a separate thread.
 
Tom_Baum said:
You wrote, “hence time cannot have a beginning”

This is merely your opinion and I disagree with it since I believe that time had a beginning, just as I believe that “space” had a beginning.

Time may or may not have an ending, I do not know.

If you want me to “prove” that time has a beginning, no problem, I can’t do it?

By the way, what is “objective time”?

Would you consider back in the past when you first wrote this post of yours to be objective time, subjective time, neither or no time at all?

Would that past, when you first made your posting, be a part of the time that you claim does not exist or would it be part of no-time that does or doesn’t exist?

Ever thought that all of these things that you think up of as not existing may very well exist and it is you that do not exist?

I happen to believe that you exist, by the way, are you a politician or a philosopher or both or neither?
Click to expand...
The objective time is like an attachment to any event in a set of events which allows that events happen in order.
 
Bahman said:
So let me know which premisses you disagree with the following argument:
  1. Objective time has a beginning
  2. Beginning is a change
  3. Any change has a before and an after
  4. From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that there was a change in the beginning of objective time
  5. Objective time is attached to any change
    6) From (4) and (5) we can deduce we need a new objective time to define the beginning of former
  6. This is infinite regress hence impossible hence (1) is wrong
Click to expand...
This is where your logic breaks down.
Suppose I have an empty glass and suppose time begins when I start adding water to the glass. There is a before, when the glass is empty, and there is an after, starting from the first drop of water hitting the bottom of the glass and continuing. Before the glass started to be filled there was no measurement of how empty the glass was. It was not empty, then emptier, then more empty. It was empty, period. “Time” only began when an outside cause started to fill the glass. The change in the state of the glass from empty to not empty is what started “time”, not the other way around. This is how real time works. Before time there is no measurement of time. Only after a cause **outside of time **causes a change does time begin. This outside cause is what we call God. I understand if you have trouble getting your head around it, it’s not an easy concept to grasp and I don’t pretend to fully understand it myself. But saying it’s impossible just because you don’t get it is not a viable argument.

PS
I’m still waiting for a reply to my post #29
 
seagal said:
Bahman, I’ve gone through many of your threads discussing time and I can’t make heads or tails of what you’re trying to prove. In this thread you’ve said Objective Time can’t exist, by which I assume you believe that Subjective Time is all there is. I’m also inferring from previous threads that by subjective time you mean our own conscious awareness of time. So essentially you’re saying that time can’t exist unless our conscious minds are aware of the changes taking place around us. Am I getting this right?
Click to expand...
Yes, to the best of my understanding. At least I know that there are issues with objective time.
 
Bahman said:
To make two arguments against objective time we consider two cases that objective time could exist and then show that both cases are paradoxical hence objective time could not exist. Time is either eternal or it has a beginning. Eternal time is problematic since it requires infinite waiting to reach now hence it is impossible. In simple word, you cannot reach now from infinite past by finite amount of waiting. Objective time in another hand is something that is attached to changes hence time cannot have a beginning because beginning of time is the point in which we have a change.
Click to expand...
Surely if the physical and temporal universe is a reality, then all that is pertaining to that universe while it exists is also a reality - including causalities and expressions?
 
seagal said:
This is where your logic breaks down.
Suppose I have an empty glass and suppose time begins when I start adding water to the glass. There is a before, when the glass is empty, and there is an after, starting from the first drop of water hitting the bottom of the glass and continuing. Before the glass started to be filled there was no measurement of how empty the glass was. It was not empty, then emptier, then more empty. It was empty, period. “Time” only began when an outside cause started to fill the glass. The change in the state of the glass from empty to not empty is what started “time”, not the other way around. This is how real time works. Before time there is no measurement of time. Only after a cause **outside of time **causes a change does time begin. This outside cause is what we call God. I understand if you have trouble getting your head around it, it’s not an easy concept to grasp and I don’t pretend to fully understand it myself. But saying it’s impossible just because you don’t get it is not a viable argument.

PS
I’m still waiting for a reply to my post #29
Click to expand...
I don’t agree to use the concept of God for any paradox we face. We have to look for a solution otherwise we don’t need to think on any subject matter at all by saying whatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top