Time cannot be created

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT’s notion of time is so messy… You can define a unit of time as you like. So, STT could say that a very fundamental unit of time is the time it took for the universe to “transit” from its “non-existence” to its existence. Naturally, you can always divide whatever time interval you might conceive. So, let’s divide STT’s fundamental unit of time into two equal sub-intervals, and let’s ask STT: “What was the ‘state of existence’ of the universe by the end of the first sub-interval?”, and there are only two possible answers: a) “non-existence” or b) “existence” (though, as usual, STT could evade the question with the first thing that comes to his mind, thinking that it is a brilliant answer: “I don’t know, I was not there!”).

If one answers that the state of existence after the first interval was “non-existence”, then the act of creation had to happen during the second sub-interval. If, on the other hand, one responds that the state of existence after the first interval was “existence” already, then the act of creation had to happen during the first sub-interval. Therefore, in any case the time interval which was defined as the very fundamental unit of time, is not the very fundamental unit of time; which is a contradiction. Therefore, STT’s argument is unsound (so, his conclusion is false).
 
Last edited:
JuanFlorencio said:
Naturally, you can always divide whatever time interval you might conceive.
Click to expand...
Although true in the mathematical world of continuous quantities, this may not be true in the physical world governed by quantum mechanics. What you are talking about is a form of Zeno’s paradox, but as it applies to time and not distance. In the case of continuous quantities Zeno’s paradox has been answered mathematically in terms of limits or even in some cases using the theory of infinitesimals. However, here we have a physical situation which may be different from the continuous mathematical case. You are assuming that time is continuous, but it is possible that time is discrete, at least if you take a cue from quantum physics and the uncertainty principle. Many physicists assert that the smallest unit of time that has meaning is the Planck time which is about 10^(-43) seconds. No smaller division of time has meaning within the framework of quantum mechanics. In that scenario, the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10^-43 seconds.
At t = 0, there was no universe.
At t = 10^-43 seconds, the universe existed.
The planck time is the time gap that separates the future from the present. It is associated with the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. However, other physicists say that the smallest unit of time is somewhat smaller than the planck time, but nevertheless the universe is still a discrete time system which means that time moves in discrete segments which are so small that it is a good approximation to assume time to be continuous.
Frequency is the inverse of time in the sense that the time period is the number of seconds per cycle, whereas the number of cycles per second is the frequency. Suppose now that the sample period is the planck time, the smallest meaningful time, then the frequency will be about 10^43 Hz, which is the maximum measurable frequency.
 
Last edited:
By what means does ‘time’ have this beginning, out of what and by what - what is the nature of this ‘pre-time’?

I believe that God upholds my existence, and is part and parcel of my knowledge between right and wrong, but that he permits me to ultimately make my own decisions - if he didn’t I could have no rational culpability in law.
 
Gorgias said:
It means that God creates. It means that He creates atemporally (since the dimension of ‘time’ doesn’t exist until creation exists). So, if you want to claim that God is subject to time, you have to make an argument that is metaphysically coherent, and is nuanced beyond a simplistic understanding of ‘time’ that is bound to our human experience within the framework of space-time.
Click to expand...
So you agree that there are two states one follows another one? That is one property of change anyway.
Gorgias said:
No – I agree with your premise, as stated. However, I disagree with the implication that you’re attempting to foist upon us: that is, that in saying ‘point’, we mean ‘point in time’. We do not agree with you in that assertion.
Click to expand...
So you need to argue where is a problem in my argument if you accept the premise.
Gorgias said:
So, what I’m doing isn’t opposite, but is consistent with good logic: I’m demonstrating to you that your premise is in error – that is, that God is constrained by His creation (namely, ‘time’).
Click to expand...
I don’t understand you. I thought that you agree with my premise.
 
AlNg said:
That may or may not be true. For example, if the universe is cyclical, with consecutive Big Bangs and subsequent Big Crunches, then there would not be a time when the universe did not exist.
Click to expand...
The universe cannot be cyclical. That is true because otherwise time extend into infinite past. That however takes infinite waiting to reach from infinite past to now which is logically impossible.
 
MountCarmel said:
By what means does ‘time’ have this beginning, out of what and by what - what is the nature of this ‘pre-time’?
Click to expand...
I don’t recall if I mentioned anything like pre-time. I just say that time is a fundamental entity in reality and it has a beginning.
MountCarmel said:
I believe that God upholds my existence, and is part and parcel of my knowledge between right and wrong, but that he permits me to ultimately make my own decisions - if he didn’t I could have no rational culpability in law.
Click to expand...
I think that God cannot hold things in motion because of uncertainty principle.
 
STT said:
The universe cannot be cyclical. That is true because otherwise time extend into infinite past. That however takes infinite waiting to reach from infinite past to now which is logically impossible.
Click to expand...
I don’t buy this because the real line extends without end into the past and yet we can position the number 2017 on the line.
There is no rule of logic which is violated by assuming that the timeline or the real line extends without end into the negative direction or into the positive direction. This assumption is made all the time in mathematics and there is no logical contradiction encountered in making this assumption. Although the point at infinity is not included in the real line, still, the line extends without end in both directions.
 
STT said:
40.png
Gorgias:
It means that God creates. It means that He creates atemporally (since the dimension of ‘time’ doesn’t exist until creation exists). So, if you want to claim that God is subject to time, you have to make an argument that is metaphysically coherent, and is nuanced beyond a simplistic understanding of ‘time’ that is bound to our human experience within the framework of space-time.
Click to expand...
So you agree that there are two states one follows another one? That is one property of change anyway.
Click to expand...
They don’t follow each other temporally, which is the basis of your argument.
Gorgias said:
No – I agree with your premise, as stated. However, I disagree with the implication that you’re attempting to foist upon us: that is, that in saying ‘point’, we mean ‘point in time’. We do not agree with you in that assertion.
Click to expand...
So you need to argue where is a problem in my argument if you accept the premise.
Click to expand...
I don’t accept your premise. As you’ve stated it most recently – in a non-temporal way (“there was a point”) – it fits; but your premise is that they follow temporally, and I don’t accept that assertion. (Remember, you keep asserting that the two points are points in time.) Therefore, I don’t accept what you’re really trying to say in your premise, even when you cleverly attempt to hide the fact that you’re trying to talk about temporal sequences. 😉
Gorgias said:
So, what I’m doing isn’t opposite, but is consistent with good logic: I’m demonstrating to you that your premise is in error – that is, that God is constrained by His creation (namely, ‘time’).
Click to expand...
I don’t understand you. I thought that you agree with my premise.
Click to expand...
No. I don’t. If you were to state it without the temporal implications, then we could begin to discuss it. However, you fully intend the temporal implications, which is where it is invalid. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
STT said:
That however takes infinite waiting to reach from infinite past to now which is logically impossible.
Click to expand...
So… you agree that time must be a created entity, then, since there cannot be an infinite ‘counting’ from now back to the ‘infinite past’! Brilliant!
 
AlNg said:
I don’t buy this because the real line extends without end into the past and yet we can position the number 2017 on the line.
There is no rule of logic which is violated by assuming that the timeline or the real line extends without end into the negative direction or into the positive direction. This assumption is made all the time in mathematics and there is no logical contradiction encountered in making this assumption. Although the point at infinity is not included in the real line, still, the line extends without end in both directions.
Click to expand...
The line doesn’t actually extend without end. The “without end” is represented symbolically but doesn’t actually do any extending.
Actual infinites are metaphysically distinct from theoretical infinites. Look up Hilbert’s Hotel.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
The line doesn’t actually extend without end. The “without end” is represented symbolically but doesn’t actually do any extending.

Actual infinites are metaphysically distinct from theoretical infinites. Look up Hilbert’s Hotel.
Click to expand...
I am not buying the idea that there is any logical contradiction in assuming the existence of a real line. If the real line does not extend without end, please give us the value of the end of the real line.
Further, there is nothing contradictory in Hilbert’s hotel, although it is a veridical paradox easily explained by the fact that the cardinality of the subset of odd rooms is the same as the cardinality of the set of all rooms.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
The line doesn’t actually extend without end. The “without end” is represented symbolically but doesn’t actually do any extending.

Actual infinites are metaphysically distinct from theoretical infinites. Look up Hilbert’s Hotel.
Click to expand...
I am not buying the idea that there is any logical contradiction in assuming the existence of a real line. If the real line does not extend without end, please give us the value of the end of the real line.
Click to expand...
That would depend upon which “real line” you are speaking about.

With regard to past time, if it extended infinitely into the past without beginning, time could not have arrived here since there would have been no defined point from which to move forward. Every such point would have prior to it an infinite number of preceding points. Thus, nowhere from which to begin the journey forward in time. We have a defined point – here and now – that assumes a defined starting point in the past from which to get here and now – a beginning to time.
Further, there is nothing contradictory in Hilbert’s hotel, although it is a veridical paradox easily explained by the fact that the cardinality of the subset of odd rooms is the same as the cardinality of the set of all rooms.
Click to expand...
I bet you can’t explain in simple terms why the paradox is “easily explained” such that it resolves the issue with regard to time and actual infinites, generally.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
40.png
JuanFlorencio:
Naturally, you can always divide whatever time interval you might conceive.
Click to expand...
Although true in the mathematical world of continuous quantities, this may not be true in the physical world governed by quantum mechanics. What you are talking about is a form of Zeno’s paradox, but as it applies to time and not distance. In the case of continuous quantities Zeno’s paradox has been answered mathematically in terms of limits or even in some cases using the theory of infinitesimals. However, here we have a physical situation which may be different from the continuous mathematical case. You are assuming that time is continuous, but it is possible that time is discrete, at least if you take a cue from quantum physics and the uncertainty principle. Many physicists assert that the smallest unit of time that has meaning is the Planck time which is about 10^(-43) seconds. No smaller division of time has meaning within the framework of quantum mechanics. In that scenario, the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10^-43 seconds.
At t = 0, there was no universe.
At t = 10^-43 seconds, the universe existed.
The planck time is the time gap that separates the future from the present. It is associated with the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. However, other physicists say that the smallest unit of time is somewhat smaller than the planck time, but nevertheless the universe is still a discrete time system which means that time moves in discrete segments which are so small that it is a good approximation to assume time to be continuous.
Frequency is the inverse of time in the sense that the time period is the number of seconds per cycle, whereas the number of cycles per second is the frequency. Suppose now that the sample period is the planck time, the smallest meaningful time, then the frequency will be about 10^43 Hz, which is the maximum measurable frequency.
Click to expand...
Basically, what you are saying here is this: time might be discrete, and if so it would not be true that it is always possible to divide an interval of time. Therefore, there might not be the contradiction that you are pointing out.

Before responding to this clever observation I need to ask you a question: if time is discrete as your physicists say, does it mean that an interval of time happens, then there is no time, and then another interval of time follows?
 
JuanFlorencio said:
if time is discrete as your physicists say
Click to expand...
Not all physicists will agree that time is discrete. Some are going to insist that time is continuous as they see problems with Lorentz invariance.
JuanFlorencio said:
does it mean that an interval of time happens, then there is no time, and then another interval of time follows?
Click to expand...
No. It means that there is a fuzziness within an interval smaller than 10^-43 sec. so that within the planck time interval particles can travel in both time directions. The positron, for example, in the planck time interval travels backward in time, according to the Feynmann description, to annihilate the electron to form gamma ray photons which then exit the planck time and move forward in real time.
 
AlNg said:
No. It means that there is a fuzziness within an interval smaller than 10^-43 sec. so that within the planck time interval particles can travel in both time directions. The positron, for example, in the planck time interval travels backward in time, according to the Feynmann description, to annihilate the electron to form gamma ray photons which then exit the planck time and move forward in real time.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that there is an inconsistency here: You said before that this interval is the smallest possible. Now you suggest that there could be other sub-intervals which are smaller. Please clarify it.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
It seems to me that there is an inconsistency here: You said before that this interval is the smallest possible. Now you suggest that there could be other sub-intervals which are smaller. Please clarify it.
Click to expand...
Right. The measurement breaks down at intervals smaller than a certain length, usually considered to be the planck time interval (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
which is about 10^-43 sec. So measurements in smaller intervals are fuzzy.
One way to see this is to consider the inverse of the planck time to get the maximum measurable frequency of 10^42 Hz. If you try to sample a continuous signal of higher frequency, you get an alias frequency lower than the one being sampled, You can’t measure the higher frequencies accurately, and since the frequency is the inverse of time, this is another indication of why time is fuzzy near the planck time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top