Time and causality

[STT]

I don’t see how time couldn’t exist without change.

Change does not ontollogically exist. We just experience change, our brains construct it. Therefore time cannot have any dependence on change. Time exist even if system is static. We can only define change if time exists.

You couldn’t measure it, but the flow of time would still be even if the world stopped changing.

Yes, that is the true statement.

Especially if there is a space time continuum

According to the physicist Julian Barbour, time space continuum is doomed. Space can be an emergent phenomena. Time exists and cannot be initiated or created. You can read more here.

Everyone in string theory is convinced…that spacetime is doomed. But we don’t know what it’s replaced by. We have an enormous amount of evidence that space is doomed. We even have examples, mathematically well-defined examples, where space is an emergent concept…. But in my opinion the tough problem that has not yet been faced up to at all is, “How do we imagine a dynamical theory of physics in which time is emergent?” …All the examples we have do not have an emergent time. They have emergent space but not time. It is very hard for me to imagine a formulation of physics without time as a primary concept because physics is typically thought of as predicting the future given the past. We have unitary time evolution. How could we have a theory of physics where we start with something in which time is never mentioned?

 

[IWantGod]

Change does not ontollogically exist. We just experience change, our brains construct it.

:crying: It was only a matter of time.

 

[thinkandmull]

Space is emergent from what? And how is change an illusion? Its easier to say time is an illusion than change

 

[IWantGod]

According to the physicist Julian Barbour, time space continuum is doomed. Space can be an emergent phenomena. Time exists and cannot be initiated or created. You can read more here.

You do realize that in science they are not making a metaphysical statement
“its physically impossible to create time” is not the same thing as "its metaphysically impossible to create time"

It seems to me that its saying physics cannot be the cause of change. Obviously, something not physical is the cause of it.

 

[STT]

Space is emergent from what?

I am afraid that I am not expert on string theory. Maybe someone else can help us.

And how is change an illusion?

What exists is the stuff which constructs things and time. Change is not something. It does not have any essence. It is an illusion constructed and experienced by us.

Its easier to say time is an illusion than change

No, the opposite is correct

 

[STT]

You do realize that in science they are not making a metaphysical statement
“its physically impossible to create time” is not the same thing as "its metaphysically impossible to create time"

It seems to me that its saying physics cannot be the cause of change. Obviously, something not physical is the cause of it.

I am making the argument that time cannot be initiated or created.

 

[IWantGod]

I am making the argument that time cannot be initiated or created.

Its a circular argument.: already containing an assumption of what is to be proved, and therefore fallacious.

 

[STT]

Its a circular argument.: already containing an assumption of what is to be proved, and therefore fallacious.

Where is that?

 

[IWantGod]

Where is that?

Its a chocolate cake.

 

[STT]

Its a chocolate cake.

Where?

 

[thinkandmull]

If change is an illusion, than we don’t grow old and die

 

[STT]

If change is an illusion, than we don’t grow old and die

We of course change. We experience matter and motion though. Matter is real and is there. Motion however is not a thing. It does not have an ontological existence. Motion is the result of change in state of matter.

 

[thinkandmull]

so change is real but not motion. how can matter change with a type of motion going on

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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

Ok, so, according to you, time and change do not exist independently of physical objects, but “together with them”. Together with them like chairs come together with tables, and leaves together with plants and trees, or how?

Is time an aspect of the form of physical objects, STT? I don’t understand this “together with stuff” of yours.

 

[thinkandmull]

And how does time itself change?

 

[Gorgias]

Time is not measure of anything.

It might surprise you, then, to read the definition of the ‘second’, as defined by the International System of Units: “the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom”. You see, time measures duration of a transition between states. In other words… it measures change.

No. You can have a static system when there is no change yet time exists.

Interesting assertion. Would you mind giving an example of a physical static system that fits that definition?

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.

Fair enough mathematical definition of what the difference between a ‘static system’ and a ‘dynamic system’ might be: “change of state over time.” Now: can you provide an example of a physical static system?

No, time cannot be created timelessly.

Why?

I have an argument for that: God needs to sustain time at now.

What does it mean for God to “sustain time”? What is it that you are asserting He’s sustaining, in this case?

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.

Since God is timeless (i.e., outside time), He observes all instants in the space-time continuum (that is, in creation) simultaneously. Therefore, God simultaneously knows all moments in time. He has no lack of knowledge which would prevent Him from knowing the changes that time measures. Therefore, there is no logical impossibility here.

Time as I mentioned cannot be caused.

You can ‘mention’ it all you want… but you haven’t proven your assertions…

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

Sadly, you are not correct. Tell me – what does it mean to “experience vision” through your sense of sight? In a very literal sense, you are experiencing the variation of light – that is, light waves – which cause you to perceive colors at a given frequency. In other words, you are experiencing change and motion.

What does it mean to “experience sound”? Very literally, you are experiencing variations in pressure in the air – that is, sound waves – which cause you to perceive pitches at varying frequencies. In other words, you are experiencing change and motion.

So, these examples demonstrate that when you perceive something as “blue” or “middle C”, what you’re really experiencing change and motion… which is exactly what time measures. You are experiencing a temporal event… and interpreting it as ‘color’ or ‘pitch’.

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

Time is a measure; a temporal framework gives us the context to understand motion.

 

[thinkandmull]

Newtonian time doesn’t need change in order to exist

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Newtonian time doesn’t need change in order to exist

You mean “the Newtonian notion of time doesn’t involve change”, right? Now, according to such notion, does time change or it is changeless?

 

[STT]

so change is real but not motion.

Things change, change in position of a particle for example. Times also change. Matter and time are real. We however experience motion, what is derived from change and time, speed for example. Motion, speed for example, does not have an ontological existence. I hope thing is clear now. It is hard to explain things.

how can matter change with a type of motion going on

Matter moves in space. That is where you get motion from. Matter interact with itself too. That leads to all varieties that you observe.

 

[STT]

Ok, so, according to you, time and change do not exist independently of physical objects, but “together with them”. Together with them like chairs come together with tables, and leaves together with plants and trees, or how?

Change does not exist independent of time. Time allows change. So, yes. You see them together. You however could have a static system where you don’t have change but time.

Is time an aspect of the form of physical objects, STT? I don’t understand this “together with stuff” of yours.

I think time is an aspect of the cosmos, it is global in a framework. Time cannot be an aspect of the form of physical objects because it cannot be caused. Why? That is the message of OP.