Time cannot be created

[JuanFlorencio]

For the continuous case, it might be useful to look into Zeno’s paradox.

No doubt it would; but let’s complete this part of the discussion first, which corresponds to the discrete case.

The thing being measured is the lifetime of the anti-electron, which according to the Feynmann scenario, is possibly moving backward in time within the fuzzy planck time period.

So, if what you say is rigorous, there can be movement within a Plank time period. And if there is movement it is posible and meaninful to say that something exists within that period. Do you want to correct something of what you have said so far?

 

[Gorgias]

Could time be some thing that isn`t directly created but rather a by-product or an experience?

A by-product of ‘creation’ or of the ‘created universe’? I guess that’s one way to think about it. Time is a dimension of the universe, and therefore, it proceeds only within the scope of the created universe.

Time could be the by-product or an experience of the will of God.

That would be an assertion that’s somewhat problematic, don’t you think? After all, the will of God is prior to the universe, and after the end of the world, the will of God continues to exist. However, ‘time’ – as the temporal dimension within creation – only has existence within the context of the present universe. So, if you want to say “God willed the universe, and as a result, He willed ‘time’”, then that sounds reasonable; however, if you say “the temporal dimension proceeds directly from God’s will”, then you could be opening a can of worms…

God willed that creation come to be, which is a change in the contents of what already exists, and so because of this, that which is changed or created, experiences time.

That would seem to play into @STT’s mistakes, since he would be able to say “well, if time is an experience of change, then it must exist in the context of the change from ‘non-existing universe’ to ‘universe in existence’”. I would hold that assertion to be in error.

We are also co-authors in this creation.

Erm… no. At least, not strictly speaking. Humans are a product of creation, not co-creators of it. (Yes, we act freely within creation, giving rise to changes within it… but we were not involved in the creation ex nihilo of all that exists.)

You’re talking about a different type of creation than the subject at hand.

 

[STT]

See… you keep doing this; that’s why I’m so unwilling to use the imprecise terminology that you insist on using! sigh

OK: God was prior, but not prior in a temporal sense. So, if by “before”, you mean “before in time”, then NO… we do not agree.

But not a “point in time”.

No. Not true.

Agreed. #5 is correct; #4 is incorrect.

NO!

This is where you’ve put your blinders on, throughout the whole conversation! Every time someone says that there is change, you presume that they mean “a change that happened within the context of time”! THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’RE SAYING.

Fine, unless you mean “points in time”. If this is what you mean (and we both know that it is ), then your argument fails – it’s a circular argument! You’re using the conclusion of your argument (“time pre-exists creation”) as a premise in your argument (“points in time pre-exist creation”).

Sorry… that was your (unspoken, and therefore sloppy) premise. You cannot prove an assertion using the very assertion to prove itself.

Therefore, given the syllogism you’ve set up, #4 is false, which leads us (via #6) to conclude that #5 is true: time is created at the creation of the universe. (Thanks for providing the mechanism for demonstrating that your assertion is false. )

Well, lets see if we could accept these facts: (1) You accept that there was/is a point at which only God exists, (2) You accept the fact that there was/is a point at which God plus creation exist. (3) Well these are two separate points otherwise the existence is ill-defined. (4) You only have two separate points which are not causally related unless you accept that there was an act. (5) The act of creation comes with a sense of directionality, one state follows another one, otherwise there was no act. (6) Now let me know that how you could reach from one point to another without sense of temporality. It should take a while to reach from one point into another otherwise either two points coincides (well we have problem with 3) or you can never reach from one into another (act cannot be fulfilled).

 

[STT]

We’re back to the same old problem, then: you’re claiming that there are two unmoved movers. That’s a contradiction. Sorry.

Time doesn’t cause anything. Time allows causation.

 

[STT]

Hello STT, is there a distinction between created and created in our universe?

I am thinking about a virtual (perhaps game) world here on a computer where time is not created in the game but is a function of the game originally created outside the game. So in this example it would be the programming that only comes into existence when the game starts. From that point on it is an intrinsic part of the game.

Just my thoughts.

Regards.

There is distinction between them since there are conscious beings in the first one which we cannot program them because they can decide.

 

[STT]

Time is an effect, as is creation. They are caused. God exists. The uncaused cause of everything that is.

Do we have a sense of directionality and temporality in an act including the act of creation, the uncaused cause?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

We’re back to the same old problem, then: you’re claiming that there are two unmoved movers. That’s a contradiction. Sorry.

Time doesn’t cause anything. Time allows causation.

That’s not my point. My point is that you’re positing two distinct entities that you are claiming are uncreated. If God is the ‘unmoved mover’ (by virtue of his omni-'s), then there cannot be another that is not created by him. Therefore, contradiction.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, lets see if we could accept these facts: (1) You accept that there was/is a point at which only God exists, (2) You accept the fact that there was/is a point at which God plus creation exist.

The way you frame these up is problematic; it implies some sort of temporal framework. You cannot posit a temporal framework (even by implication) if your goal is to prove the temporal framework. It’s a circular argument. It fails by definition.

(5) The act of creation comes with a sense of directionality, one state follows another one, otherwise there was no act.

“Follows” in what way?

(6) Now let me know that how you could reach from one point to another

A ‘point’ on what kind of line?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Time is an effect, as is creation. They are caused. God exists. The uncaused cause of everything that is.

Do we have a sense of directionality and temporality in an act including the act of creation, the uncaused cause?

directionality? temporality?

The uncaused cause is perfect as is.

 

[STT]

That’s not my point. My point is that you’re positing two distinct entities that you are claiming are uncreated. If God is the ‘unmoved mover’ (by virtue of his omni-'s), then there cannot be another that is not created by him. Therefore, contradiction.

What I am trying to show is that it is impossible to perform an act without time. You are facing a contradiction if you are trying to think so.

 

[STT]

The way you frame these up is problematic; it implies some sort of temporal framework. You cannot posit a temporal framework (even by implication) if your goal is to prove the temporal framework. It’s a circular argument. It fails by definition.

There is no temporality in this step. Can you show it to me?

“Follows” in what way?

One comes after another.

A ‘point’ on what kind of line?

No line. Just reach from one point to another point.

 

[STT]

directionality? temporality?

The uncaused cause is perfect as is.

What that supposed to mean? Perfect. You are not answering my questions.

 

[AlNg]

it is impossible to perform an act without time.

That seems right. I don’t see how you can do anything if there is no time to do it?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

STT:

it is impossible to perform an act without time.

That seems right. I don’t see how you can do anything if there is no time to do it?

For STT, time is a kind of intangible substance. It seemed to me that your notion was more rational, as you did not have any comment on the interpretation I made of one of your explanations: time would be our act of comparing one movement or change against another movement that features the peculiarity of periodicity. Did you change your mind?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

The way you frame these up is problematic; it implies some sort of temporal framework. You cannot posit a temporal framework (even by implication) if your goal is to prove the temporal framework. It’s a circular argument. It fails by definition.

There is no temporality in this step. Can you show it to me?

You are positing “points” with implicit time. Moreover…

“Follows” in what way?

One comes after another.

…this only happens if there is ‘time’. See what I mean? Your argument is bound up in implicit references to a temporal framework!!!

A ‘point’ on what kind of line?

No line. Just reach from one point to another point.

Again… physical things that ‘reach’ and do so ‘from’ and ‘to’ require time. If you’re trying to prove that there’s time within the created universe, then your argument works. It fails because you’re working outside the created universe.

What I am trying to show is that it is impossible to perform an act without time. You are facing a contradiction if you are trying to think so.

Great. And if your argument went something like:

1. Let’s suppose that there is no temporal framework prior to creation.
2. …
3. … blah blah blah…
4. …
5. But this requires time. Therefore, there’s a contradiction. Therefore, time must exist prior to creation.

… now, that would be an argument with some force behind it. However, your argument looks like this:

1. Let’s suppose that there is no temporal framework prior to creation.
2. State S’ follows state S (as in a temporal framework).
3. …
4. blah blah blah
5. …
6. But this requires time. Therefore, there’s a contradiction. Therefore, time must exist prior to creation.

This argument doesn’t work, because – although your first premise is that there’s no temporal framework (after all, that’s what sets you up for showing the contradiction) – your following premises rely on exactly the opposite premise. Therefore, you’re proving that time exists through premises that presume (implicitly) that time exists.

See the problem here?

 

[Fidveritas]

Giant begging the question fallacy via equivocation, equating essence to substance (measurement/the equation itself) and presuming time cannot itself cannot be a function, or measurement, of any other variable.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

directionality? temporality?

The uncaused cause is perfect as is.

What that supposed to mean? Perfect. You are not answering my questions.

refers back to post 231 Time cannot be created - #231 by steve-b

what’s your point Re: directionality? temporality?

 

[AlNg]

For STT, time is a kind of intangible substance. It seemed to me that your notion was more rational, as you did not have any comment on the interpretation I made of one of your explanations: time would be our act of comparing one movement or change against another movement that features the peculiarity of periodicity. Did you change your mind?

Hello and good day:
Not sure, but I suspect that there are more aspects of time than just one way of looking at it. There is a similar situation with light. Although it may seem contradictory, light can be viewed as either a particle or a wave.

 

[STT]

For STT, time is a kind of intangible substance. It seemed to me that your notion was more rational, as you did not have any comment on the interpretation I made of one of your explanations: time would be our act of comparing one movement or change against another movement that features the peculiarity of periodicity. Did you change your mind?

Yes, a movement against another movement and this movement against another movement and … To measure time. That is infinite regress. We are aware of duration. Duration is simply time elapsed between two events in a specific system, standard clock. It is real since allows that the events happen with a specific order.

 

[STT]

You are positing “points” with implicit time. Moreover…

The necessity of time comes in the last step of my argument if you read it carefully! You need to show that where is the time in the first and second premises. Time implicitly enters when we assume that there was a uncaused cause which caused change between point one and two. I repeat the argument in the last part of this post.

…this only happens if there is ‘time’. See what I mean? Your argument is bound up in implicit references to a temporal framework!!!

That is the conclusion. If you don’t like that argument then you have to show that one of the step before is wrong.

Again… physical things that ‘reach’ and do so ‘from’ and ‘to’ require time. If you’re trying to prove that there’s time within the created universe, then your argument works. It fails because you’re working outside the created universe.

That is not really an argument. The key question is whether nonphysical things decide and act.

Great. And if your argument went something like:

Let’s suppose that there is no temporal framework prior to creation.
…
… blah blah blah…
…
But this requires time. Therefore, there’s a contradiction. Therefore, time must exist prior to creation.

… now, that would be an argument with some force behind it. However, your argument looks like this:

Let’s suppose that there is no temporal framework prior to creation.
State S’ follows state S (as in a temporal framework).
…
blah blah blah
…
But this requires time. Therefore, there’s a contradiction. Therefore, time must exist prior to creation.

This argument doesn’t work, because – although your first premise is that there’s no temporal framework (after all, that’s what sets you up for showing the contradiction) – your following premises rely on exactly the opposite premise. Therefore, you’re proving that time exists through premises that presume (implicitly) that time exists.

See the problem here?

Well, then you have to show that the rest of my argument is blah blah: I repeat them again for sake of clarity and in regards to my previous comments.

Well, lets see if we could accept these facts: (1) You accept that there was/is a point at which only God exists, (2) You accept the fact that there was/is a point at which God plus creation exist. (3) Well these are two separate points otherwise the existence is ill-defined. (4) You only have two separate points which are not causally related unless you accept that there was an act. (5) The act of creation comes with a sense of directionality, one state follows another one, otherwise there was no act. (6) Now let me know that how you could reach from one point to another without sense of temporality. It should take a while to reach from one point into another otherwise either two points coincides (well we have problem with 3) or you can never reach from one into another (act cannot be fulfilled).