Time and causality

[STT]

You can’t have speed with out change.

That is correct.

And time does not exist without change.

Time is fundamental. It cannot be caused. This is discussed in OP.

 

[e_c]

That is not really good reference. Look for example “But neither does time exist without change; for when the state of our own minds does not change at all, or we have not noticed its changing, we do not realize that time has elapse”. Time of course changes independent of our psychological states. Moreover, we cannot experience time. We experience motion and distances.

What is your definition if time? Do you have problem with my definition?

I am really open to discussion.

I am sorry, but it does not seem you have made an attempt to understand Aristotle - in fact you seem to get the opposite of what he is saying.

 

[IWantGod]

Time is fundamental. It cannot be caused. This is discussed in OP.

You can keep making this assertion all you like. If there is no change how can we even talk about time in any meaningful sense.? You speak of time as if it is something distinct from change, and i am saying the very concept of time becomes completely meaningless without change… What does it even mean to say that time is fundamental?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

OK… so far, you’re just recapitulating Aquinas’ demonstration that there must be a single uncaused cause

. No I am not saying that (bold part).

I know you’re not. That’s what makes it kinda funny – you’re paraphrasing Aquinas’ argument… and then claiming that it leads to a conclusion diametrically opposed to Aquinas’ conclusion!

I am arguing that time changes but this change is not the result of a cause or moving from a potentiality into actuality.

Well… you’re not really arguing it… just saying that it’s true.

Nevertheless, let’s examine your claim. What causes time to ‘change’? (That is, what causes moments in time move from time t[sub]n[/sub] to time t[sub]n+1[/sub], according to our perception of the ‘present’ as a particular value of t?)

I show that the assumption, time has a cause, leads to contradiction.

This is particularly difficult to accept as reasonable. Now, granted – I’m going by the Aristotelian definition of time: that it’s the measure of change. For Aristotle, who watched the sun “travel” the sky and cause shadows to move, time was the measure of that change. So, as he watched a shadow move from point A to point B, in a way that could be measured, he called the measure of that change “time”. So, for instance, he would call a movement of a certain number of degrees of change in a sundial an “hour”.

Now… what you’re claiming, I think – and please tell me if I’m misunderstanding you – is that there is no cause to the measure of the change. That, at its heart, is nonsensical. If I see that a sundial’s shadow moves from here to there, and I call the measure of that change “one hour”, then clearly, that measure has a cause: namely, the difference in the shadow – which itself is caused by the change in the position of the sun (which, in turn is caused by the rotation of the earth). So, at the very heart of your assertion, there’s a rather manifest error: the measure of change is, by its very definition, the perception of a change that is caused by something!
"STT:

Gorgias:

Erm… no. You haven’t proven this. All you’ve demonstrated is what Aquinas demonstrated: you cannot have only caused causes, since it leads to infinite regress

.I don’t understand what you are saying here (bold part).

Hmm… I don’t think I understand your confusion. After all, I’m just repeating what you wrote in your OP:

there should exist another time which allows the cause. This obviously leads into infinite regress.

 

[thinkandmull]

Space as well? I guess it has been discovered that there are big spaces where there is no space, such that though they are very big, those spaces where there is space are so close together that space looks as if it were continuous… right?

Space and time are discreet in the sense that they are infinitely divisible

 

[thinkandmull]

Time is number of motion with respect to before and after, and it is continuous. (See Book IV of Aristotle’s “Physics”), so this is the formal cause. The material cause of time, then, is motion itself. The efficient cause would be the First Mover and the final cause being a kind of completion of the things in motion.

Aristotle made tons of errors in that book. Are you not aware of the space time continuum? You say its continuousness is its formal cause. But that means you think time is a thing. To have form it to exist. Then you say motion is its prime matter. Huh?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Time is a weird entity. It is not a thing that we can experience it directly. It doesn’t have any form but we could deduce that it exists. We know that it changes but how a entity which does not have form could change? That is what you are asking and I cannot answer it in direct way. It looks self contradictory at starting, something which doesn’t have a form but it can change, but time to my understanding is the fundamental hidden variable of reality.

We don’t experience it but it is real. We couldn’t simply have any dynamical theory without it. That means that it is a part of reality. It should change otherwise we couldn’t have any motion.

Please go ahead, deduce the existence of time, and then demonstrate that it does change. Give me your best argument. Without it your OP simply makes no sense.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Space and time are discreet in the sense that they are infinitely divisible

Have you tried to divide space and time? Can you separate the pieces?

I think that regarding space’s “divisibility” all you mean is that you can mark many positions on it. And concerning time, you mean nothing.

 

[STT]

You can keep making this assertion all you like. If there is no change how can we even talk about time in any meaningful sense.? You speak of time as if it is something distinct from change,

If you accept change is noting than motion then time is different from motion.

and i am saying the very concept of time becomes completely meaningless without change…

That not correct. There exist statics physical states while time changes globally.

What does it even mean to say that time is fundamental?

It means that it allows us to have a theory for motion of universe. The reality is dynamic.

 

[STT]

I know you’re not. That’s what makes it kinda funny – you’re paraphrasing Aquinas’ argument… and then claiming that it leads to a conclusion diametrically opposed to Aquinas’ conclusion!

No, I am saying that time does not need a cause at all. Its beginning and the beginning of dynamic existence coincides. Its existence allows things to change accordingly, as laws of nature dictates.

Well… you’re not really arguing it… just saying that it’s true.

No, I am saying that time cannot have a cause otherwise you fall in trap of infinite regress.

Nevertheless, let’s examine your claim. What causes time to ‘change’? (That is, what causes moments in time move from time t[sub]n[/sub] to time t[sub]n+1[/sub], according to our perception of the ‘present’ as a particular value of t?)

We experience form and motion. We cannot experience time but just deduce it, the reality is dynamic.

This is particularly difficult to accept as reasonable. Now, granted – I’m going by the Aristotelian definition of time: that it’s the measure of change. For Aristotle, who watched the sun “travel” the sky and cause shadows to move, time was the measure of that change. So, as he watched a shadow move from point A to point B, in a way that could be measured, he called the measure of that change “time”. So, for instance, he would call a movement of a certain number of degrees of change in a sundial an “hour”.

Time is the fundamental independent variable. Change is another fundamental independent variable.

Hmm… I don’t think I understand your confusion. After all, I’m just repeating what you wrote in your OP:

I hope things is clear now.

 

[STT]

Please go ahead, deduce the existence of time, and then demonstrate that it does change. Give me your best argument. Without it your OP simply makes no sense.

The very fact that reality is dynamic shows that time exists. That is the way we understand reality: there exist dynamical theory which can tell you what will be final state of universe if initial condition is given. That describes a change which cannot be explained without time. Time itself should change otherwise we couldn’t use it as a label for conservative events.

 

[Gorgias]

No, I am saying that time does not need a cause at all.

If time is a measure of some other thing (e.g., ‘motion’, ‘change’), then its cause is the thing being measured.

Its beginning and the beginning of dynamic existence coincides.

If what you’re saying is that the beginning of time is the beginning of physical things (which themselves change), then I agree. Time begins once there’s something that changes that can be measured!

Its existence allows things to change accordingly, as laws of nature dictates.

No. Time does not produce change; it measures change. The fact that we exist within a temporal framework is what allows things to change “over time”.

No, I am saying that time cannot have a cause otherwise you fall in trap of infinite regress.

As I mention, time does have a cause: that is, the change that it measures. That does not create an infinite regress. (However, if you ask “what causes the things that change”, you can end up with an infinite regress unless you posit an unmoved mover.)

We experience form and motion. We cannot experience time but just deduce it, the reality is dynamic.

No, that doesn’t seem quite right.

I ‘experience’ form through the use of my senses (e.g., I see a ball at the top of a hill). I ‘experience’ motion through the use of my senses (e.g., I see a ball roll from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill). If I’m particularly silly, I might conclude that I’m seeing millions of balls – the first one at the top of the hill, the second one a millimeter down the hill, the next one two millimeters down the hill, etc, etc, and the last one at the bottom of the hill.

By noting the change in position, I ‘experience’ motion (although, if you wish, you might claim that I’ve deduced it).

Then, I ‘experience’ time by virtue of the measure of change of position in the ball. (Again, if you want to call it ‘deducing’ it, that’s ok.) However – that doesn’t mean that my experience of time is somehow fundamentally different than my experience of form or motion.

Time is the fundamental independent variable. Change is another fundamental independent variable.

No – both ‘time’ and ‘change’ are dependent on physical matter. Without physical matter, there’d be no change and no time that measures the change.

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t see how time couldn’t exist without change. You couldn’t measure it, but the flow of time would still be even if the world stopped changing. Especially if there is a space time continuum

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The very fact that reality is dynamic shows that time exists. That is the way we understand reality: there exist dynamical theory which can tell you what will be final state of universe if initial condition is given. That describes a change which cannot be explained without time. Time itself should change otherwise we couldn’t use it as a label for conservative events.

That is not a demonstration, STT.

On the other hand, a theory which resorts on differential equations with initial conditions to convey its content makes use of the symbol “t”, which is commonly known as “time”, but it is obvious that such “time” is not the time you are talking about here. On the same blackboard (simultaneously, so to say) you could represent the initial and the final state of your system, and any number of the intermediate stages; but that is not possible for the “thing” you call time.

Would you say that change and time are separate “things”, or that one of them is contained in the other, or that both “things” are really only one?

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t see how time couldn’t exist without change. You couldn’t measure it, but the flow of time would still be even if the world stopped changing. Especially if there is a space time continuum

The flow of time? I have never encountered an idea of time that doesn’t intrinsically involve change. I’m sorry it doesn’t mean anything.

If the world stopped changing, there would be no time anymore, just the remnants of it.

 

[e_c]

Aristotle made tons of errors in that book. Are you not aware of the space time continuum? You say its continuousness is its formal cause. But that means you think time is a thing. To have form it to exist. Then you say motion is its prime matter. Huh?

I’m aware of the difficulty of reconciling relativity with Aristotle’s Physics - I think recall Fr. Spitzer’s “New Proofs” book touching on it?

It still does not seem to me, however, easy to dismiss the larger points of the text. My off-the-cuff rendition of the four causes of time notwithstanding - I’m not sure I’m quite right about that. I would recommend St. Thomas commentary over mine… His is also available online for free!

I might be interested in a separate thread on the issue.

 

[thinkandmull]

The flow of time? I have never encountered an idea of time that doesn’t intrinsically involve change. I’m sorry it doesn’t mean anything.

If the world stopped changing, there would be no time anymore, just the remnants of it.

The remnants of it? Time measures change in the sense that we known how to measure it from change. It is just about the passage of time though. Change is accidental to time

 

[thinkandmull]

I’m aware of the difficulty of reconciling relativity with Aristotle’s Physics - I think recall Fr. Spitzer’s “New Proofs” book touching on it?

It still does not seem to me, however, easy to dismiss the larger points of the text. My off-the-cuff rendition of the four causes of time notwithstanding - I’m not sure I’m quite right about that. I would recommend St. Thomas commentary over mine… His is also available online for free!

I might be interested in a separate thread on the issue.

Cool

 

[STT]

If time is a measure of some other thing (e.g., ‘motion’, ‘change’), then its cause is the thing being measured.

Time is not measure of anything. Time allows that change happens accordingly, following laws of nature.

If what you’re saying is that the beginning of time is the beginning of physical things (which themselves change), then I agree. Time begins once there’s something that changes that can be measured!

No. You can have a static system when there is no change yet time exists. Time allows us to distinguishes and allows us to defines static and dynamic system. It also allows us to formulate a dynamic theory. Defining S as state of system we can then define an static system as dS/dt=0. The dynamical system is defined by dS/dt=/= H(S) where the H is the evolution operator.

No. Time does not produce change; it measures change. The fact that we exist within a temporal framework is what allows things to change “over time”.

The fact that we exist and change is the result of existence of time. It is ontological existence is obvious.

As I mention, time does have a cause: that is, the change that it measures. That does not create an infinite regress. (However, if you ask “what causes the things that change”, you can end up with an infinite regress unless you posit an unmoved mover.)

No, time cannot be created timelessly. I have an argument for that: God needs to sustain time at now. For this God needs to know a daynamic stamp which changes by time. God is however timeless then the act of causing time by God is logically impossible. Time as I mentioned cannot be caused.

No, that doesn’t seem quite right.

It is correct. Do you have any sense to experience time?

I ‘experience’ form through the use of my senses (e.g., I see a ball at the top of a hill). I ‘experience’ motion through the use of my senses (e.g., I see a ball roll from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill). If I’m particularly silly, I might conclude that I’m seeing millions of balls – the first one at the top of the hill, the second one a millimeter down the hill, the next one two millimeters down the hill, etc, etc, and the last one at the bottom of the hill.

No, you just see one ball at the time because you exist at now as ball exists and can be experienced by you at now.

By noting the change in position, I ‘experience’ motion (although, if you wish, you might claim that I’ve deduced it).

Yes, we can deduce the motion either (of course if time exist and allows us to define motion in term of position and time). I think that we can experience motion too.

Then, I ‘experience’ time by virtue of the measure of change of position in the ball. (Again, if you want to call it ‘deducing’ it, that’s ok.) However – that doesn’t mean that my experience of time is somehow fundamentally different than my experience of form or motion.

No, you don’t have any sense to experience time.

No – both ‘time’ and ‘change’ are dependent on physical matter. Without physical matter, there’d be no change and no time that measures the change.

So you want to say that time is caused by matter at the same time its very existence allows the matter to move?

 

[STT]

That is not a demonstration, STT.

Yes, it is a demonstration.

On the other hand, a theory which resorts on differential equations with initial conditions to convey its content makes use of the symbol “t”, which is commonly known as “time”, but it is obvious that such “time” is not the time you are talking about here.

It is the time that I am talking about. The reality exists and moves based on laws of nature. The laws of nature is time dependent.

On the same blackboard (simultaneously, so to say) you could represent the initial and the final state of your system, and any number of the intermediate stages; but that is not possible for the “thing” you call time.

Things exist at the moment and change based on laws of nature, dS/dt=H(S) where S being set of variables which define state of system and H is evolution operator. No time, no laws of nature, no change. We do even need time to define a static system, dS/dt=0.

Would you say that change and time are separate “things”, or that one of them is contained in the other, or that both “things” are really only one?

Time exists together with stuff. Change is not something that can ontologically exists, therefore we just experience change which is construct of physical activity.